Wp/11288/2014 Of Mr Dushyant Naagar v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF JUNE, 2014| BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA| WRIT PETITION NOs.11288,89/2014 (TmIT) BETWEEN: 1.MR. DUSHYANT NAAGAR,|SON OF MR.DEVENDRAKANT NAGAR,|AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,RESIDING AT NO.7/8,1 MAIN, SHUB ENCLAVE, HARLUR ROAD,OFF.SARJAPUR, BANGALORE-560 102.| 2.MRS. PRIYA SHANKAR, WIFE OF MR. DUSHYANT NAAGAR,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,RESIDING AT NO.7/8, |1 MAIN, SHUB ENCLAVE,HARLUR ROAD, OFF.SARJAPUR, |BANGALORE-560 102. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ARUN KUMAR.K, ADV.) AND: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( TDS),ROOM NO.59, H.M.T.BHAVAN, 4 FLOOR,|BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR,BANGALORE-560 032.) 2.DIRECTOR GENERAL,CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,NORTH BLOCK, DELHI-110 OO1.. 3.STATE BANK OF INDIA,REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT ST.MARKS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 OO1.. 4.INORBIT MALLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,|A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE |PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ©ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE ATPLOT NO. C-30, BLOCK-G, OPPOSITE TO SIDBI, MUMBAI-400 O51. .»» RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: K.V.ARAVIND FOR R1 & R2, SRI.M.NAGAPRASANNA,|ADV. FOR R3, SRI.SATISH.N. AND SRI.B.KRISHNA, ADVs.FOR R4) KK KKK THESE W.Ps ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22/7OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Rl1TO REFUND EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS.5,59,800/- | RUPEES FIVELAKHS FIFTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED ONLY],TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON FROM 7.10.13 TILL DATE|OF REALIZATION AS REQUESTED FOR VIDE ANN-H.| THESEPETITIONS|COMINGON.FOR.PRELIMINARYHEARING IN ~B’ GROUP THIS’ DAY, COURT MADE THEFOLLOWING:-_ ORDER The petitioners have sought a direction to the firstrespondent to refund a sum of Rs.5,59,800/- together with|interest thereon from 07/10/2013, as requested in theirrepresentation,which1S atAnnexure“HH”dated15/10/2013. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners hadpurcnased an apartment bearing No.6 in building No.2B,| “VIVA™, Tnhiswadi,Goa,constructedDY.the.fourth respondent, for a valuable consideration of Rs.62,20,000/-fa copy of the sale deed is produced as Annexure “A” in.Support of his averment. Under Section 194-IA of the)Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the‘Act’, for the sake of brevity), wnere a sale consideration|exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs), in respect ofimmoveable properties, the intending purchasers Nave to.deposit a sum equivalent 1% to the sale consideration as)an advance tax on behalf of the vendor. In the instant|case, accordingly, a sum of Rs.62,200/- was to be.deducted and paid to the vendor of the petitioners within—tne prescribed time. The petitioners in fact, deposited that|amount by uploading Form No.26-AS. The said deposit)was made on 17/09/2013 on the web portal of the third)respondent —- Bank and through the bank account of thepetitioner bearing No.10209764954. While effecting the)said payment of account of certain technical glitches, thepayment was made ten times of Rs.62,200/-, wnhicnaccording to the petitioners was an excess payment. The)petitioners immediately intimated the third respondent —|Bank and also informed the Income-tax Department about it. Thereafter, they made several requests both oral and inwriting, seeking refund of tne excess payment of)Rs.5,59,800/-, as there were debit entries in the bankaccount of the petitioners and hence, according to the)petitioners, the amount was credited in the account of theIncome-tax Department. There being no response from the)Department to the request made by the petitioners, tne|petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction|for refund to the excess payment made by them. 3. I nave heard tne learned counsel for tne|petitioners|and.tnejearned.standingcounse|]forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the Bank|and perused the material on record. The counsel for theBank Nas supported the case of the petitioners. it. Thereafter, they made several requests both oral and inwriting, seeking refund of tne excess payment of)Rs.5,59,800/-, as there were debit entries in the bankaccount of the petitioners and hence, according to the)petitioners, the amount was credited in the account of theIncome-tax Department. There being no response from the)Department to the request made by the petitioners, tne|petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction|for refund to the excess payment made by them. 3. I nave heard tne learned counsel for tne|petitioners|and.tnejearned.standingcounse|]forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the Bank|and perused the material on record. The counsel for theBank Nas supported the case of the petitioners. 4. The difficulty expressed by the learned counselfor the respondent-Department was that the excess.payment effected by the petitioners would have beenrefiected in the accounts of the fourtn respondent and)therefore, it would be difficult to reverse those entries at.this stage and further, the petitioners would have to seek.their remedy vis-a-vis the fourth respondent. It was. StatedthatthesetransactionsNavingpeen|made|electronically, the Department would nave no control over|the same and it is only at the stage when the returns ofthe fourtn respondent are submitted and assessed, tnere|could be reversal of the entries. However, the fact)remains tnat the actual credit of these amounts nave beenmade in the name of the Income-tax Department. Therewould be no credit entry in respect of the fourth)respondent. Fourth respondent if at all could have taken)advantage of these entries shown in Annexure “B”, which.is Form No.26-AS, but that would not in any way result in|excess payment being made by the petitioners if creditedto the account of the fourth respondent. The excess sums)are in fact, with the Department. All that the petitioners.are seeking is refund of the excess payments. In this)regard, the difficulty expressed by the learned standingcounsel for the Department is also taken note of.Therefore, while directing the Income-tax Department, torefund the excess amount paid by the petitioners as per)Annexure “B™- Form No.26-AS, the Department is also.directed to note and to make necessary changes vis-a-visthe excess payments made in the account of the fourth respondent. Further, fourth respondent is also directednot to reflect the payment at S!.Nos.2 to 10 of Annexure|“B” in its returns to be filed insofar as the transaction at!Annexure “A” is concerned. Tne excess payment lying in|the credit of first respondent is directed to be refunded to.the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date)of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 5.It is needless to opserve tnat In view of tnis'direction, both the first respondent and fourth respondent:would not refiect the credit made at SI.Nos.2 to 10 InAnnexure “B” in the returns of the fourth respondent aswell as in the records of the first respondent. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions,the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/-| JUDGE. | *IMVS