2012 (8) TMI 155 - HC - Income Tax

Rejecting the claim of refund - the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 claimed for settlement of the arrears of the assessment year 1992-93 - Held that - The adjustment of the refund amounts together with interest, did not at all prejudice the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - It is also pertinent that the revision itself was delayed. Ofcourse the petitioner contends that the same was due to the appeal filed against the letter of rejection but that alone cannot enable the petitioner to file a delayed revision -as there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner and that there is absolutely no illegal enrichment by the department no revision can be ordered at this stage and the petitioner s claims for the same is devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim for the year 1992-93 based on adjustment of refund for the year 1996-97 against arrears; Interpretation of intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for the year 1996-97; Application of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998; Computation of tax payable under the Scheme; Duty of Income Tax Department to assist taxpayers in getting eligible relief.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of a refund claim for the year 1992-93, contending that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- due as a refund for the year 1996-97 was adjusted against arrears from 1992-93. The petitioner disputed receiving the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for 1996-97, which the department claimed showed the adjustment. The petitioner applied under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, to settle the arrears. The Assessing Officer demanded tax and interest under Section 234B, which the petitioner settled under the Scheme, clearing the arrears for 1992-93.

2. The petitioner argued that the adjustment of the refund for 1996-97 against arrears was not reflected in the intimation under the Scheme, thus claiming the amount as refund. The department contended that the petitioner was aware of the adjustment based on the interest amount mentioned in the intimation. The court noted the delay in seeking revision and found no prejudice caused to the petitioner under the Scheme due to the adjustment of the refund amounts with interest.

3. The court analyzed the computation of tax payable under the Scheme, emphasizing that the settlement depends on disputed income, not the interest component. Referring to a previous decision, the court highlighted the duty of the Income Tax Department to assist taxpayers in obtaining eligible relief. Despite acknowledging errors in the computation of demand for 1992-93, the court found no prejudice caused to the petitioner by the adjustment of refund amounts with interest, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

4. The court concluded that the delay in seeking revision, the absence of prejudice to the petitioner, and the lack of illegal enrichment by the department rendered the petitioner's claims devoid of merit. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition without costs, ruling against ordering a revision at that stage.