9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1. Heard Mr. S. Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 10726 of 2011 challenging the order dated 26.10.2009 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). By the said order, the return filed by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red writ appeals viz., W.A. No. 1542 of 2010 etc., batch and by a common judgment dated 23.12.2011, the writ appeals were dismissed. 4. In respect of one Mr. S. Vasudevan, who is also an employee like that of the petitioner herein, his case came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 572 of 2011, by the revenue as against the order in W.P. No. 20525 of 2010 dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount to the employee, against whom admittedly there was no demand, with interest. According to him, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in S. Thiagarajan's case is not applicable to the facts of the case and in that case Section 240 was dealt with, whereas the present case is covered by the provisions of Section 239 of the Act. He further added that the Chief Commissioner of Tax has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, we are not able to take a contra view. In the said case, the Karnataka High Court has categorically held that it is an obligation cast on the Revenue to effect the refund, without calling upon the assessees to apply for refund the claim. The learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to state as to whether the order of the order of the Karnataka High Court has been reversed by the Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
