1995 (2) TMI 105 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of tax rejected by Assessing Officer based on the timing of the filing of the return and the claim for refund.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the DCIT(A) rejecting the claim for refund of tax for the assessment year 1990-91. The assessee, an individual, initially filed the return of income on 26-10-1990 declaring total income of Rs. 33,160. Along with the return, she claimed credit for TDS and self-assessment tax. Subsequently, she filed a claim for refund of tax in Form No. 30 on 26-3-1991, supported by documents showing advance tax paid. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim stating that the return had already been processed under section 143(1)(a) and the supplementary claim for refund could not be entertained. The DCIT(A) upheld the decision, citing the provisions of section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961, which allows for filing a revised return within a specific timeframe. The DCIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the revised return was filed after the prescribed period, hence not permissible.

The assessee, dissatisfied with the DCIT(A)'s order, appealed before the Tribunal. The assessee's counsel argued that the DCIT(A) erred in law by refusing to process the claim for refund. The counsel contended that the Assessing Officer and the DCIT(A) misinterpreted the provisions of the IT Act. The counsel also highlighted the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, emphasizing the acceptance of a claim for refund under comparable circumstances. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) argued that the claim for refund was made under a specific section of the IT Act and should have been accompanied by a fresh return if the original return had been processed. The D.R. maintained that since the assessment was already completed, the revised return was rightly rejected.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and documents presented. It noted that the claim for refund was made within the prescribed time limit and that the return accompanying the claim for refund should have been disregarded by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal clarified that there was no requirement for the assessee to enclose a return of income with the claim for refund in Form No. 30 since the return had already been submitted. The Tribunal found fault with the Assessing Officer for refusing to entertain the claim for refund and disagreed with the DCIT(A)'s classification of the accompanying return as a revised return under section 139(5). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to process and dispose of the assessee's claim for refund after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.