2004 (2) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Refund on account of tax deducted at source - objection of the Revenue is that the claim of refund was not in the prescribed form, i.e., Form No. 30, - The existence of a prescribed form, to which an application for refund has to conform, cannot be used to bar the claim of the assessee to a refund of the tax on the super-technical ground that his application for refund was not on a given prescribed form. By prescribing a given form, the framers of the rules intended to facilitate the refund and not to bar or hinder the right of an assessee for getting his money back - Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form No. 30.

Issues: Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding credit for tax deducted at source.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertained to an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, regarding the allowance of credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,19,015. The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 on March 30, 1992, claiming credit for the mentioned amount without attaching the certificates for tax deducted at source. Subsequently, in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed another return declaring the same income and attached 42 certificates of tax deducted at source. The Assessing Officer processed the second return but did not issue the refund as it was not claimed in the prescribed form, Form No. 30. The assessee contended that as per a departmental circular, the refund should have been allowed based on the documents filed along with the return. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim, stating that the refund claim should have been made within two years from the end of the assessment year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee.

The High Court, after hearing the arguments, found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's findings. It noted that the return claiming the refund was filed within the limitation period, and the Assessing Officer failed to take any action on it, citing heavy workload as an excuse. The Court criticized the Assessing Officer's inaction, stating that the assessee should not suffer due to negligence on the officer's part. Additionally, the Revenue's objection that the refund claim was not in the prescribed form, Form No. 30, was deemed an attempt to thwart a valid claim on a hyper-technical ground. The Court referred to a judgment by the jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing that the prescribed form was meant to facilitate inquiries and should not hinder an assessee's right to a refund. It also cited a decision by the Calcutta High Court, highlighting the need to interpret refund provisions liberally in favor of the assessee. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the duty of the Assessing Officer to act on a filed return within the limitation period and criticizing attempts to reject a valid refund claim on technical grounds. The judgment underscored the need to interpret tax laws and refund provisions in a manner that favors the assessee, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal principles.

← Previous Next →