2014 (7) TMI 95 - HC - Income Tax

Claim for refund u/s 119(2)(b) - Period of limitation - credit of TDS which was not claimed earlier - TDS deducted during the Assessment year 2002-03 to 2004 - certificates received in November 2008 - denial of credit on the ground of period of limitation based on Non-existing circular - Held that - The order dated 24.4.2012 rejected the application on the basis of a non-existing circular No. 670 of 1993 of the C.B.D.T. for the reason the same stands modified by Instruction No. 13 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 and this modified instruction does not in any manner provide for rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the same is a supplementary claim for refund - the three applications dated 17.3.2009 filed on 26.3.2009 of the assessee has been rejected by applying a non-existing circular and ignoring the circular/Instruction dated 22.12.2006 - thus, the order is set aside and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to hear the assessee and dispose of the assessee s applications u/s 119 (2) (b) of the Act for A.Y.2002-03 to 2004-05 without applying circular No.670 of 1993 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing application for refund after condoning delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner's assessment for A.Y.2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 resulted in refunds, which were granted after considering the TDS claims. Subsequently, the petitioner received TDS certificates for these years in November 2008, realizing they hadn't claimed credit for TDS during assessment. They filed refund applications in March 2009, seeking condonation of delay due to late receipt of TDS certificates.

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the refund applications in April 2012, citing them as supplementary claims after assessment completion, relying on a circular from 1993. However, it was found that this circular had been modified in 2006, which was not considered. The court set aside the order, directing the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the applications without relying on the outdated circular, keeping all contentions open.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, instructing the Chief Commissioner to review the applications promptly and preferably within 12 weeks, without applying the obsolete circular. No costs were awarded in this matter.