2013 (1) TMI 456 - HC - Income Tax

Refund claim - Whether an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) would constitute assessment - Petitioner had omitted to claim the credit in original return of income u/s 139(1) on 26.7.2005 for the A.Y. 2005-06 - Intimation regarding processing of return forwarded to assessee u/s 143(1)(a) on 8.12.2005 Assessee filed a revised return for claiming refund on 26.9.2006 u/s 139(5) Held that - Following the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited (2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT) that the expressions intimation and assessment order have been used at different places. The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used. Assessment is used as meaning sometimes the computation of income , sometimes the determination of the amount of tax payable and sometimes the whole procedure laid down in the Act for imposing liability upon the tax payer . In the scheme of things, the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment There was no regular assessment framed in the present case. Therefore, the assessee for A.Y. 2005- 06 could file the revised return after complying with the provisions of Sec. 139(5) up to 31.3.2007. The revised return filed on 26.9.2006 was thus validly filed within limitation. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner-assessee for the refund of the additional tax deposited is valid and justified In favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Claim for quashing orders and refund of excess tax paid.
2. Validity of revised return and claim for refund.
3. Interpretation of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Assessment under Section 143(1)(a) and filing of revised return.
5. Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount.

Issue 1: Claim for quashing orders and refund of excess tax paid

The petitioner sought to quash orders dated 3.3.2009, 18.8.2011, and 6.9.2011, and refund the excess tax paid along with interest in terms of the revised return filed on 26.9.2006. The petitioner had initially deposited income tax but omitted to claim credit, leading to a revised return for a refund of Rs. 3,61,188. Despite various applications, the refund was declined by the respondents, stating the revised return was not valid. The petitioner argued that the revised return was legitimate and the refund should be granted.

Issue 2: Validity of revised return and claim for refund

The petitioner filed an original return for the assessment year 2005-06 and later a revised return claiming a refund of Rs. 3,61,188. The respondents declined the refund, asserting that the revised return was not valid. The petitioner contended that the revised return was filed within the prescribed timeline and should be considered legitimate for claiming the refund. The respondents supported their decision and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act

Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act allows for the filing of a revised return if any omission or wrong statement is discovered in the original return. The provision specifies the timeframe within which a revised return can be filed. The court analyzed the applicability of this section to the petitioner's case and concluded that the revised return was validly filed within the stipulated timeline, making the claim for refund justified.

Issue 4: Assessment under Section 143(1)(a) and filing of revised return

The court deliberated on whether an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act constitutes an assessment that would prevent the filing of a revised return. Citing a Supreme Court judgment and a Division Bench decision, it was established that an intimation under this section does not equate to an assessment order. As no regular assessment was framed in the present case, the petitioner was entitled to file the revised return within the specified timeframe, making the claim for refund valid.

Issue 5: Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount

The petitioner also sought interest on the refunded amount, relying on a Division Bench judgment. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of the refund to the petitioner within three months along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum until the payment date. This decision was based on the entitlement to interest from the date of deposit till the refund grant, including interest on interest.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the court.

← Previous Next →