K.krishnaraj v. The Income Tax Officer - I (2)Pondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.NO.28158 OF 2004ANDW.M.P.NO.34195 OF 2004 K.Krishnaraj ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Income Tax Officer - I (2)Pondicherry. 2.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIState of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry,Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai - 600 034. 3.Central Board of Direct Taxes,Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs,New Delhi. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records of the Second Respondent dated 02.04.2004in his proceedings F.No. HQ.21 (2)/01-02/17 and quash the sameso far it relates to the Assessment Year 1995-96 andconsequentially direct the Respondents to refund the sum ofRs.1,04,489/- paid in excess by the Petitioner by completing theIncome Tax assessment of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year1995-96. For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel Heard Mr.N.Murali Kumaran, Learned Counsel for thePetitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Learned Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the Respondents, and perused the materials placedon record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.2.The Writ Petition challenges the proceedings in F.No.HQ.21(2)/01-0217 dated 02.04.2004 passed by the SecondRespondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) rejecting theclaim for refund of excess amount of income tax paid by thePetitioner for the assessment year 1995-1996 as bared bylimitation. In arriving that at the conclusion, the SecondRespondent has referred to Section 239(2)(c) of the Act, whichstipulates that no claim for refund shall be allowed unless itis made within the period of one year from the last date ofassessment year after 01.04.1968. The decision of the DivisionBench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Niranjan Dass -vs-Central Board of Direct Taxes [(2004) 226 ITR 489] has beencited in support of that proposition of law. 3.It is borne out from the records that it was thePetitioner who had delayed in filing the returns for theassessment years for which the claim for refund had been made.The explanation sought to be given by the Petitioner in thatregard has been found to be totally unsatisfactory, which couldnot be accepted. In any event, it is not been shown that anypower has been conferred on the concerned authorities to condonethe delay in entertaining such claim for excess payment ofincome tax. 4.Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, thatthere does not appear to be any infirmity in the decision makingprocess of the Second Respondent warranting any interference bythis Court in the exercise of the discretionary powers of thejudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kv/dm To 1.The Income Tax Officer - I (2)Pondicherry. 2.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIState of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry,Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai - 600 034.State of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry,Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai - 600 034. 3.Central Board of Direct Taxes,Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs,New Delhi.Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs,New Delhi. SRA(CO)CS/05/11/2020 W.P.No.28158 of 2004