9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... senior citizen who had in an earlier Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.2594 of 2013 challenged the action of the Respondent Assessee in not entertaining the Petitioner's application for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by her employer the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). This TDS was deducted on the payment made to her in the year 2004 when she opted for Optional Early Retirement Scheme (Scheme) from the RBI. The Respondent Revenue did not entertain the Petitioner's application for refund on the ground that there was a delay of more than six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year i.e. A. Y. 2004-05. The Respondent Revenue was of the view that in view of Instruction No.13 of 2006 dated 22nd December, 2006 issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RBI who opted for early retirement scheme under the Scheme will be entitled to the benefit of Section 10(10C) of the Act. Immediately after the issue of circular dated 8 May 2009 by the CBDT the petitioner filed on 30 September 2009 a revised return of income seeking refund of TDS paid on her behalf by RBI." (emphasis supplied) In view of the above, it was clear that the date of filing of revised return of income on 30th September, 2009 was to be considered as an application for condonation of delay and grant of refund under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. Further, Respondent did not dispute the claim of the Petitioner for refund on merits but pleaded helplessness only on the ground of limitation as provided in the Instruction No.13 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble High Court no interest become due to you." (emphasis supplied) 4. From the above, it is clear that the CIT(A) has completely misread the order of this Court dated 15th January, 2014. Before the Court, in the earlier Writ Petition leading to the order dated 15th January, 2014, there was no dispute between the parties that the Petitioner was entitled to refund under the Act, nor there was any dispute with regard to the quantum of refund. The only objection which was urged before us at that time the application for refund seeking to invoke under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. This court on consideration of the facts, in the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
