2023 (6) TMI 1041 - HC - Income Tax

Refund claim - effect of name change - defective return u/s 139(9) or not - in whose name the refund should be issued? - as change of name of Petitioner, Petitioner ought to have filed revised returns to be entitled to refund and therefore, a notice u/s 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969 - HELD THAT - As the name change has been reflected in the records of the Income Tax Department. Notwithstanding this, Petitioner has been issued a notice dated 23rd April, 2019 stating that the name mentioned in the return of income does not match with the name as per the PAN database and Petitioner has been advised to correct the name in the return of income as per PAN allotted to Petitioner. PAN database correction would certainly indicate what was the original name and therefore, Petitioner s name when it filed the return of income tax was the correct name as it then existed. Therefore, there can never be a defect and notice issued u/s 139(9) was not a valid notice. If AO had checked the database, he would have found answer and could have avoided issuing a notice. Notice is hereby quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case is the entitlement to a refund by the Petitioner, with the controversy being in whose name the refund should be issued. The Respondents argue that the Petitioner should have filed revised returns after a change of name to be eligible for a refund, leading to a notice under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969 being issued.

Summary:
The High Court considered the Petition and related documents, finding no defect in the Petitioner's actions. The Petitioner had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 under the name of Suhani Trading & Investment Consultants P. Ltd, with a subsequent name change to Future Corporate Resources P. Ltd. The change was duly reflected in the records of the Income Tax Department, including the issuance of a new PAN card with the updated name but the same PAN number.

The Court emphasized that the name change had been correctly updated in the PAN database, and the notice issued under Section 139(9) was deemed invalid. It was noted that if the Assessing Officer had checked the database, the correct information would have been available, thus avoiding the need for the notice.

Mr. Suresh Kumar referred to a previous order dated 6th May 2022 in a related case, indicating that the current matter would be addressed within the scope of that order. Consequently, the notice dated 23rd April, 2019 was quashed and set aside, directing the Respondents to process the Petitioner's returns by 31st July 2023 without considering any defects, in compliance with the law.

The Petition was disposed of by the High Court, providing relief to the Petitioner regarding the refund issue.