N.mathivanan v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Office Of The Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 002

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :24.06.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.8535 of 2021 (Through Video Conference) N.Mathivanan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Office of the Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore – 560100. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing therespondents to process the petitioner's claim under refund of taxamount of Rs.60,870/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred andSeventy Only) as per Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act. For Petitioner : Ms.Kanimozhi MathiFor Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking forissuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to processthe petitioner's claim of refund of tax amount of Rs.60,870/-(RupeesSixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Only) as per Section 89(1)of the Income Tax Act. 2. According to the petitioner, he was employed as a PhysicalEducation Training Teacher with Manimekalai Elango Higher SecondarySchool, Palani and retired from service on 31.08.2006 and now, heis receiving his pension. While the matter stood thus, in thefinancial year 2013 - 2014, the petitioner received pension incomeof Rs.1,89,086/- and arrear of Rs.5,10,419/- totalling a sum ofRs.6,99,505/-. For the said amount, tax was deducted at the sourcefor a sum of Rs.66,281/- through E-TDS by the District EducationalOfficer, Palani. The balance arrear amount of Rs.4,44,138/- wascredited into the petitioner's bank account by way of ECS on06.02.2014. Hence, in the assessment year 2014-2015, he filed hisreturn of income as on 07.11.2015 with the claim of tax relief underhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ _________ Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, along with submitting form 10Eclaiming income tax refund for a sum of Rs.60,870/-. However, thepetitioner received an intimation from the second respondent on20.12.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act, demanding a sum ofRs.77,537/- which included the tax amount of Rs.66,281 that wasalready deducted through E-TDS by the District Educational Officer,Palani and a sum of Rs.10,688/- towards interest liability.However, the second respondent did not consider the deduction madeat the source through E-TDS by the District Educational Officer,Palani and demanded the petitioner to pay the tax amount along withinterest. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(MD)No.19804 of 2016 and as per the orders passed by this Courtdated 18.10.2016, the first respondent issued a letter dated28.11.2016 stating that based on the letter from the DistrictEducational Officer, Palani about the E-TDS, rectification orderhas been passed reducing the demand to Nil after giving credit toTDS. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time ofsubmitting the income tax return for the financial year 2013-2014,in the assessment year 2014-2015, the petitioner is entitled to therefund of Rs.60,870/- as per Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act.In this regard, he submitted representations on 01.03.2016,07.11.2019 and 17.12.2019 to the respondents. The representationsare said to be still pending. Hence, this writ petition. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that itwould suffice if a direction is given to dispose of therepresentation of the petitioner. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2would state that the representation of the petitioner would beconsidered within a reasonable time. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time ofsubmitting the income tax return for the financial year 2013-2014,in the assessment year 2014-2015, the petitioner is entitled to therefund of Rs.60,870/- as per Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act.In this regard, he submitted representations on 01.03.2016,07.11.2019 and 17.12.2019 to the respondents. The representationsare said to be still pending. Hence, this writ petition. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that itwould suffice if a direction is given to dispose of therepresentation of the petitioner. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2would state that the representation of the petitioner would beconsidered within a reasonable time. 6. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for inthis writ petition, without going into the merits of the caseprojected by the petitioner either in his representation or in thisWrit Petition, the respondents are directed to consider therepresentation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2019, on merits and inaccordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period oftwelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Suchexercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to thepetitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ _________ 7.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.No Costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CSIII) // True Copy // / /2021Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized forofficial purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the orderthat is presented is the correct copy, shall be theresponsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To: 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Office of the Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore – 560100.+1 CC to M/s.S.SRIMATHY, Advocate ( SR-20256[F] dated 25/06/2021 ) W.P(MD)No.8535 of 202124.06.2021 KB(01.07.2021) 3P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ _________