9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act to furnish a return of income during the previous year which in the present case would be 2020-21. Provisions contained under Section 239 of 1961 Act read with Rule 41 (2) of 1962 Rules that the claim for refund can be only on completion of previous year which in the present case would be after 31.3.2021. We are not commended to any independent provision conferring jurisdiction in the PCCIT to order for refund before the completion of previous years, i.e., 2020-21 (31.3.2021). It is not the case of the petitioner that the excess amount deposited by the petitioner towards advance tax is illegally collected by the department as would entitle her for the refund of the same without following the due procedure prescribed under Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gain works out to ₹ 22,34,548/- and the tax payable thereon at the rate of 20.8% works out to ₹ 4,64,785/-. It is urged that the petitioner actually wanted to deposit advance tax of ₹ 4,50,000/- before 15th September, 2020; however, while preparing the challan vide Serial Number 00001 and BSR Code 0004707, a bona fide mistake occurred and in place of ₹ 4,50,000/- the challan was prepared for ₹ 45,00,000/-. The cheque was deposited through the State Bank of India, Jawaharganj Branch, Jabalpur on 14.9.2020. The petitioner realising the mistake committed in depositing the advance tax of ₹ 45,00,000/- in place of ₹ 4,50,000/- and the fact that the same would be returned in normal course only after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther contended that any refund whatsoever can be claimed by filing income tax return after completion of previous year i.e., after 31.3.2021. It is contended that the decision relied on by the petitioner in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner because that was the case where the allegations were that the incumbent has been assessed to tax under a void legislation and having paid it under a mistake is entitled to get it back. 5. Considered the rival submissions. 6. It is not in dispute that ₹ 45,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 14.9.2020 as advance tax. The petitioner is an assessee. It is also not in dispute that income earned by the petitioner is assessable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king a claim for refund of tax consists of dividends or any other income from which tax has been deducted under the provisions of sections 192 to 194, section 194A and section 195, the claim shall be accompanied by the certificates prescribed under section 203. (4) The claim under sub-rule (1) may be presented by the claimant in person or through a duly authorised agent or may be sent by post. 7. It is, therefore, clear from the provisions contained under Section 239 of 1961 Act read with Rule 41 (2) of 1962 Rules that the claim for refund can be only on completion of previous year which in the present case would be after 31.3.2021. We are not commended to any independent provision conferring jurisdiction in the PCCIT to order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been referred to cases in which orders had been issued directing the state to refund taxes illegally collected, but all such had been those in which the petitions challenged the validity of the assessment and for consequential relief for the return of the tax illegally collected. We have not been referred to any case in which the courts were moved by a petition under Article 226 simply for the purpose of obtaining refund of money due from the State on account of its having made illegal exactions. We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amounts illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
