Wp/6921/2009 Of Smt. Kapila Ben v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax - V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEANDTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6921 of 2009 Between: Smt. Kapila Ben D/o. Sri. Amrut Lal Kataria D.No.6-25-2412/17, Shradhanand Gunj, D.No.6-25-2412/17, Shradhanand Gunj, Nizamabad. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax - V Income Tax Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the HighCourt will be pleased to pass an order or direction especially one inthe nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by 1stRespondent dated 01-12-2008 in F.No.CIT/HYD-V/82(7)/2008-09 asbeing illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and set aside thesame and consequently hold that the Petitioner is entitled to claim forrefund of taxes of Rs.15,800 and Rs.74,382 in respect of Assessmentyears 2005-06 and 2006-07 as the Petitioner has satisfied theconditions laid down by CBDT circulars. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri B. Narasimha Sarma,learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finallyheard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dt.1.12.2008passed by respondent No.1, whereby the applications submitted bythe petitioner for condonation of delay in submitting the returnsclaiming refund of the amount, which was deducted at source by wayof tax, have been rejected. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that it is notin dispute that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax for theassessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. For the aforestatedassessment years, tax was deducted from the income at source andtherefore the petitioner had submitted returns claiming refund and asthere was delay in submitting the returns, she filed applications forcondonation of delay. As the said applications were rejected byrespondent No.1, the petitioner has approached this Court with aprayer that the impugned order dt.1.12.2008 be quashed and therespondents be directed to pay the amount of refund. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, could not dispute thefact that the amount of tax was deducted from the income of thepetitioner and said amount was payable to the petitioner, as thepetitioner was not having taxable income for the said years. It has been, however, submitted on behalf of the respondents that thereturns claiming refund were not submitted within the timeprescribed. It has been further submitted that no justifiable reasonwas stated for filing the returns claiming refund of the amount at abelated stage. In the aforestated circumstances, it has beensubmitted by him that the impugned order is just and proper. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perusedthe impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact thatthe amount claimed by the petitioner was in fact payable to thepetitioner, but it was not paid to the petitioner simply for the reasonthat the returns claiming refund of tax were not submitted within thetime prescribed and no reason was assigned for submitting thereturns at a belated stage. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perusedthe impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact thatthe amount claimed by the petitioner was in fact payable to thepetitioner, but it was not paid to the petitioner simply for the reasonthat the returns claiming refund of tax were not submitted within thetime prescribed and no reason was assigned for submitting thereturns at a belated stage. Looking to the aforestated undisputed facts that no tax waspayable by the petitioner and the amount deducted at source was tobe refunded to the petitioner, but the amount was not refunded onlybecause the returns of income were filed at a belated stage and thattoo without assigning any reason along with the return, in our opinion,it would be just and proper and it would be in the interest of justice toquash and set aside the impugned order so as to give an opportunityto the petitioner to submit reasons for which the returns claimingrefund were filed at a belated stage. If there are justifiable reasons,we are sure that the reasons shall be looked into by the respondentauthorities and appropriate orders in accordance with law shall bepassed. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set asidethe impugned order dt.1.12.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file anapplication within two weeks from today submitting reasons for whichthe returns were filed at a belated stage, so that the concernedrespondent can look into the reasons and pass order afresh after considering the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. _____________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 8.6.2009 _______________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J bnr