Manju v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I
High Court
03 Nov 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · mdubench
Parties
Manju v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I
Date of order
03 Nov 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-2017, 2017-2018
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Manju v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:03.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
Manju ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Madurai.
2.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Income Tax Department,
CCIT, Madurai.
3.The Assessing Officer,
Income Tax Office,
Madurai.
...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to refund of Rs.12,16,580/- of the assessment year 2016-2017 as per the order passed
by the 2[nd]respondent dated 12.03.2021 in order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031455719(1) and directing the 2nd respondent to refund the amount of Rs.5,14,010/- of the assessment year
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
2017-2018 as per the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.04.2021 in order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2021-22/1032719974(1) within stipulated period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The petitioner, with a grievance that the amounts to an extent of Rs.12,16,580/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty only) for the assessment year 2016-2017 and Rs.5,14,010/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Ten only) for the assessment year 2017-2018 were collected as income tax from the petitioner's husband in excess to the amounts which are liable to be paid, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the said amount, as per the orders passed by the second respondent on 12.03.2021 and 29.04.2021.
2. The petitioner's husband, who is an income tax assessee, died in
the year 2016. Hence, the petitioner, as the wife of the assessee, has filed
2/5
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
this Writ Petition.
3. When this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the said amount of Rs.12,16,580/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty only) and Rs.5,14,010/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Ten only) have already been paid to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also confirmed the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/Nossb
03.11.2023
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Madurai. Madurai.
2.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, CCIT, Madurai. Income Tax Department, CCIT, Madurai.
3.The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office, Madurai. Income Tax Office, Madurai.
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD).No.24538 of 2023
03.11.2023
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.