Smt. Kapila Ben V. The Commissioner of Income Tax - V and Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2

WP/6921/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Kapila Ben, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax - V and the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Nizamabad, challenging the rejection of her applications for condonation of delay in submitting tax refund claims for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The petitioner argued that although tax was deducted at source, she was not liable to pay any tax for the mentioned years and thus was entitled to a refund. The respondents contended that the refund claims were not submitted within the prescribed time and no justifiable reasons were provided for the delay. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the refund but allowed the quashing of the impugned order to give her an opportunity to provide reasons for the delay in filing the refund claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797134 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Tax refund; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: F.No.CIT/HYD-V/82(7)/2008-09

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6921 of 2009 Between: Smt. Kapila Ben D/o. Sri. Amrut Lal Kataria D.No.6-25-2412/17, Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax - V Income Tax Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by 1st Respondent dated 01-12-2008 in F.No.CIT/HYD-V/82(7)/2008-09 as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and set aside the same and consequently hold that the Petitioner is entitled to claim for refund of taxes of Rs.15,800 and Rs.74,382 in respect of Assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 as the Petitioner has satisfied the conditions laid down by CBDT circulars. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dt.1.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the applications submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay in submitting the returns claiming refund of the amount, which was deducted at source by way of tax, have been rejected. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. For the aforestated assessment years, tax was deducted from the income at source and therefore the petitioner had submitted returns claiming refund and as there was delay in submitting the returns, she filed applications for condonation of delay. As the said applications were rejected by respondent No.1, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the impugned order dt.1.12.2008 be quashed and the respondents be directed to pay the amount of refund. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, could not dispute the fact that the amount of tax was deducted from the income of the petitioner and said amount was payable to the petitioner, as the petitioner was not having taxable income for the said years. It has been, however, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the returns claiming refund were not submitted within the time prescribed. It has been further submitted that no justifiable reason was stated for filing the returns claiming refund of the amount at a belated stage. In the aforestated circumstances, it has been submitted by him that the impugned order is just and proper. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the amount claimed by the petitioner was in fact payable to the petitioner, but it was not paid to the petitioner simply for the reason that the returns claiming refund of tax were not submitted within the time prescribed and no reason was assigned for submitting the returns at a belated stage. Looking to the aforestated undisputed facts that no tax was payable by the petitioner and the amount deducted at source was to be refunded to the petitioner, but the amount was not refunded only because the returns of income were filed at a belated stage and that too without assigning any reason along with the return, in our opinion, it would be just and proper and it would be in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit reasons for which the returns claiming refund were filed at a belated stage. If there are justifiable reasons, we are sure that the reasons shall be looked into by the respondent authorities and appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned order dt.1.12.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file an application within two weeks from today submitting reasons for which the returns were filed at a belated stage, so that the concerned respondent can look into the reasons and pass order afresh after considering the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. _____________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8.6.2009 bnr "