2014 (5) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

Claim of refund of TDS on salary - employer denies all allegations made in the writ petition - Claim of refund of income tax which the petitioner alleges is not due from her - No refund claim was made in the original return - refund claim through revised return - Held that - without going into the other contentions raised in this petition including one of limitation under the Act, revenue directed that, AO shall re-consider the case of the petitioner for refund, if any, due in accordance with law save and except that limitation will not be used as ground to bar the petitioner from claiming this amount. - If any amount is found due, it shall be refunded to the petitioner but without interest. - Matter remanded back. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of income tax allegedly not due.
2. Allegations by the petitioner against the employer for incorrect deduction.
3. Denial of allegations by respondents.
4. Filing of revised income tax returns and refund claims.
5. Employer's denial of allegations.
6. Court's observation on the petitioner's claim.
7. Direction by the court for reconsideration of the refund claim.
8. Requirement for necessary documents from the employer.
9. Opportunity granted to the petitioner to explain her case.
10. Disposal of the writ petition without setting a precedent.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of income tax, claiming that the employer, respondent No.5, wrongly deducted Rs. 26,694. Respondents No. 2 to 4 denied the allegations, stating that the petitioner filed returns for assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, seeking refunds. The court noted the petitioner's persistent pursuit of a small refund amount and acknowledged the processing of returns by the income tax department. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the claims made by the parties.

The court, considering the modest amount in question and the petitioner's employment under respondent No.5, directed that respondent No.4 re-examine the refund claim without using the limitation as a bar. It also instructed respondent No.5 to provide the necessary documents. The court emphasized granting the petitioner an opportunity to present her case and required respondent No.4 to allow the submission of essential documents before proceeding further.

If any refund is found to be due, it should be repaid to the petitioner without interest. The court clarified that its order does not establish a precedent for any other case, including that of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of without imposing any costs.