9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 1030 - HC - Income TaxRefund claim of the TDS - non filling of ITR online/e-file - Income Tax Return filed by the petitioner treated defective u/s 139 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, as per Section 139 of the Act, the petitioner was required to file the ITR online, which he failed to do. That apart, after August 2018, the petitioner has approached this Court vide present writ petition after a lapse of more than three years. We are unable to accept the claim of the petitioner as we find that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay. The petitioner ought to have made claim for recovery within a reasonable time after 17.07.2018. On ascertaining what is reasonable time for claiming refund, the courts have often taken note of the period of limitation prescribed under the general Law of Limitation for filing of suits for recovery of amount due to them the same being three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bombay Tyers International Ltd. and others, 1998 (3) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT has approved of the aforesaid principle. WP dismissed.
Issues:
Refund claim for assessment year 2014-15; Defective filing of Income Tax Return under Section 139 of the Act; Delay in approaching the court for refund claim. Refund Claim for Assessment Year 2014-15: The petitioner, a registered Cooperative Society, sought a refund of ?40,147 for the assessment year 2014-15, claiming that the Income Tax Return filed on 12.09.2014 through PAN No.AAAAM7407N was exempt under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, resulting in the refund of TDS amounting to ?40,147. The claim for refund was not accepted initially, leading the petitioner to approach the authorities with requests dated 31.03.2016 and 21.10.2016. However, the authorities informed the petitioner on 07.08.2018 that the Income Tax Return filed was treated defective under Section 139 of the Act. Defective Filing of Income Tax Return under Section 139 of the Act: The petitioner's return was considered defective under Section 139(9) as it was required to be filed online, which the petitioner failed to do. Despite being advised to rectify the defects and file the return online or apply for condonation of delay, the petitioner did not comply. The Central Board of Direct Taxes closed the complaint made by the petitioner, stating that the refund claim could not be processed due to the failure to rectify the defects in the return. Delay in Approaching the Court for Refund Claim: The petitioner approached the High Court with a writ petition more than three years after the complaint to the Central Board of Direct Taxes was closed on 13.08.2018. The court noted that the claim for refund was barred by delay and laches, emphasizing that the petitioner should have made the claim within a reasonable time after 17.07.2018. Citing the general Law of Limitation, which prescribes a three-year period for filing suits for recovery, the court found the petitioner's claim to be untimely. Referring to the principle approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case, the court dismissed the writ petition due to being barred by delay.
|
