2016 (11) TMI 1013 - HC - Income Tax

Double deposit of TDS - error in return - Held that - Going through the documents available on record we find that the contention of the petitioner in the matter of depositing towards deduction of TDS in the matter of purchase of property by registered sale deed and deposit of the amount as required under Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act seems to be correct. Since the department having not taken a decision since 2014, we issue the following the directions (a) On petitioner s filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents before the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 shall look into matter and verify the allegation of the petitioner and if petitioner found entitlement to the amount, the same shall be refunded to her within a period of 45 days from today. It shall be incumbent upon the respondent No.3 to record reasons while order speaking in nature indicating the reason as to why he does not accept the contention of the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of double tax payment amount by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of the double tax payment amount of ?88,030 made online to the department. The petitioner claimed that despite repeated representations, the amount was not refunded. The document from the Income Tax Department showing the double payment was submitted as evidence. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments in similar cases and requested a refund based on the error in payment. The respondent assured that the department would examine the issue and make a decision within a reasonable time.

Upon reviewing the facts and documents, the court found the petitioner's contention regarding the tax deduction to be correct. The court directed the department to verify the petitioner's claim and make a decision. Since the department had not acted on the matter since 2014, the court issued specific directions. The respondent was instructed to examine the matter upon receiving a certified copy of the order and relevant documents. If the petitioner was found entitled to the amount, it was to be refunded within 45 days. The respondent was required to provide reasons if the claim was not accepted.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, and a certified copy was to be provided as per rules. The court's decision emphasized the importance of verifying the petitioner's claim and ensuring a timely refund if deemed appropriate, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in such matters.