Gurcharan Singh v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Ludhiana And Another

CWP No. 4804 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4804 of 2016 Date of Decision: 14.3.2016 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Ludhiana and another ...Respondents. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ inthe nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund an amountof ` 1,42,060/- along with interest under Section 244-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on the delayed payment. 2.The petitioner filed his income tax return videacknowledgment dated 28.6.2014 and claimed refund of ` 1,42,060/-along with interest under Section 244-A of the Act due for theassessment year 2014-15. He paid tax amounting to ` 1,42,060/- for thefinancial year 2014-15 vide income tax return dated 26.6.2014(Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the petitioner was exempted under Section10(37) of the Act and balance LTC gain for sum of ` 1,42,0604/-, thecomputation of the income as assessed on the petitioner received acopy of annual tax statement under Section 203AA of the Act and the CWP No. 4804 of 2016-2- income from other sources was ` 39,743/-. Therefore, the total dueamount towards the respondents is ` 1,42,060/-. The petitioner sentthree reminders including the reminder dated 30.8.2015 (Annexure P-2)to respondent No.2 for refunding an amount of ` 1,42,060/- along withinterest, but no response has been received till date. Even, thepetitioner submitted duplicate return dated 5.1.2006 along withdocuments (Annexure P-3) for the assessment year 2014-15 on theasking of respondent No.2 as the original one was not traceable. Hence,the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for therelief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a reminder dated30.8.2015 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.2, but no action has so farbeen taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing thepresent petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 totake a decision on the reminder dated 30.8.2015 (Annexure P-2), inaccordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is furtherdirected that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the said amount,the same be released to him within next one month, in accordance withlaw. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 14, 2016 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) gbs JUDGE