2023 (9) TMI 1040 - HC - Income Tax

Mistake made in filling up the two challans accompanied the deposit of the self-assessment tax - principal grievance of the petitioner is that he deposited (albeit, in two tranches) towards tax was inadvertently captured against under Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 instead of AY 2020- 21 - It is also the petitioner s case that there was no requirement to make a deposit towards the self-assessment tax in AY 2019-20, since it had suffered losses in the relevant period. HELD THAT - As submitted revenue could deal with the petitioner s requests in one of three ways (i) First, refund Rs. 40,00,000/- to the petitioner. (ii) Secondly, condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file a revised return. (iii) Thirdly, allow the petitioner to adjust Rs. 40,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner for against another AY. Thus having regard to what is put forth by the learned counsels for the parties before us, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the CBDT to examine the three alternatives placed before us by the petitioner. CBDT will, thereafter, take a decision as to what would be the best way forward. The CBDT is requested to pass a reasoned order and have the same communicated to the petitioner. Needless to add, before any decision is taken, the CBDT will hear the authorized representative of the petitioner, in that behalf.

Summary

Issues involved:
The principal grievance is the incorrect allocation of a tax deposit of Rs. 40,00,000/- against the wrong Assessment Year (AY) by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a remedy from the court due to the error made in the self-assessment tax deposit process.

Issue 1 - Incorrect Tax Allocation:
The petitioner deposited Rs. 40,00,000/- towards tax in two tranches, mistakenly allocated to AY 2019-20 instead of AY 2020-21. Acknowledging the error in filling up the challans accompanying the deposit, the petitioner seeks correction and refund due to having suffered losses in AY 2019-20.

Issue 2 - Request for Correction and Refund:
Upon realizing the error, the Assessing Officer corrected the records to reflect the deposit against the correct AY 2020-21. Subsequently, the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing a revised return to claim the refund. The lack of progress on this request led to the initiation of the writ petition.

Issue 3 - Remedial Options:
The petitioner presented three alternatives to the respondents/revenue for addressing the situation: refunding the amount, allowing a revised return with delay condonation, or adjusting the deposit against another AY. The respondents agreed to examine these options through the CBDT for appropriate action.

Judgment:
The High Court directed the CBDT to evaluate the three alternatives proposed by the petitioner and make a decision on the best course of action. The CBDT was instructed to issue a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner's representative and to resolve the matter expeditiously within ten weeks from the date of the court's order. Parties were instructed to comply based on the digitally signed copy of the order to expedite the resolution process.