9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 347 - HC - Income TaxRefund of excess tax with interest Held that - The entire issue of the orders of ITAT, AO orders giving effect to ITAT orders and Mr. S.M.Kandhar paying the tax as directed by the tribunal would require determination into questions of fact - It is only then that the amount of the refund if any due to the assessee can be determined - This would require examination of each ITAT orders and the consequence of it revenue is directed to consider application/representation for refund dated 12.6.2012 in the light of the various orders passed by the ITAT and to examine whether or not Mr. S.M. Kandhar has paid taxes on the peak amounts assessed in his hands if so as directed by the ITAT - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
- Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a refund of excess tax paid with interest. - Dispute over refund not being granted by respondent-revenue. - Allegation by respondent-revenue regarding tax liability of petitioner's husband. - Condition set by respondent-revenue for refund related to husband's tax payment. - Argument by petitioner's counsel that conditions for refund are met. - Court's decision on the matter and directions issued. Issue 1: Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a refund of excess tax paid with interest. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for the respondent-revenue to refund the excess tax paid along with interest amounting to approximately Rs. 1.21 crores for Assessment years 1990-1991 to 1997-1998 and 2000-2001. Issue 2: Dispute over refund not being granted by respondent-revenue. The petitioner claimed that despite repeated requests, the respondent-revenue had not refunded the amounts due, totaling around Rs. 1.21 crores with interest. The petitioner's counsel argued that the refund was not granted even after the ITAT orders were passed, and requested the court to direct the respondents to grant the refund after verifying the petitioner's claim. Issue 3: Allegation by respondent-revenue regarding tax liability of petitioner's husband. The respondent-revenue contended that the husband of the petitioner was liable to pay tax on alleged loans advanced to the petitioner under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had deleted the addition made in the petitioner's case as the husband agreed to pay the tax, as per the affidavit filed by an Income Tax Officer. Issue 4: Condition set by respondent-revenue for refund related to husband's tax payment. The respondent-revenue argued that any refund due to the petitioner would only be given if the husband had paid taxes on the peak amount assessed in his hands, as directed by the ITAT. Issue 5: Argument by petitioner's counsel that conditions for refund are met. The petitioner's counsel disputed the respondent's condition for refund, stating that it was present in only one of the ITAT orders. They further argued that the amounts payable as per Mr. S.M. Kandhar's assessment orders had been duly paid, justifying the refund to the petitioner. Issue 6: Court's decision on the matter and directions issued. The court acknowledged the complexity of the issue involving ITAT orders, Assessing Officer's actions, and Mr. S.M. Kandhar's tax payments. It directed the respondent to consider the refund application in light of ITAT orders, verify Mr. Kandhar's tax payments, provide reasons for any denial of refund, and dispose of the application within 12 weeks while keeping all contentions open. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
