Wp/9494/2017 Of Gurmit Singh Vilkhu v. Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURWRIT PETITION NO.9494/2017 PETITIONER:GURMEET SINGH VILKHUVs. RESPONDENTS :THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAND ANOTHER. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, JJ.Petitioner : Shri Gurmeet Singh Vilkhu inperson.For the respondents: Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Whether approved for reporting: Law Laid down :Significant para nos. : O R D E R(14/02/2019) Per R. S. Jha, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner againstthe notice dated 9.5.2017 issued to him by therespondents under section 154/155 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seekingrectification of the mistake in the order dated 5.12.2014passed by the Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward-1(1), Jabalpur. 2.It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitionerwas an employee of the Punjab and Sind Bank and whilein service a departmental enquiry was initiated against 2 WP No.9494/2017 him on 29.2.1996 and he was placed under suspension.The petitioner was ultimately terminated by the Bank inthe departmental enquiry against which the petitionerhad taken up proceedings before this Court. It issubmitted that ultimately, after disposal of thepetitioner’s writ appeal whereby the order passed by thelearned Single Judge, setting aside the termination andremanding the matter, was set aside, this Court in M.C.CNo.960/2007 dated 4.7.2008 held that the petitionershould be treated as an employee under suspension from1.3.1996 to 16.4.2007 and be paid subsistence allowancefor the said period. As the amount of subsistenceallowance was not paid to the petitioner, he filed aContempt Petition which was registered as C.PNo.1003/2008 and was ultimately disposed of on18.2.2010 on a statement being made by the Bank thatthe subsistence allowance had been paid to thepetitioner, at the same time granting liberty to thepetitioner to assail the deduction made by the Banktowards income tax by filing a writ petition or byapproaching the income tax authorities for refund. Thesubsistence allowance was Rs.20,90,354.96 for theaforesaid period which had been paid to the petitioner by 3 WP No.9494/2017the Bank on 23.3.2009 after deducting a sum ofRs.5,25,000/- towards income tax. 3.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, thepetitioner approached the Income Tax authorities forrefund of the Tax deducted from the subsistenceallowance. The petitioner filed an application on 4.6.2010before the authority concerned for refund of the taxdeducted by the authorities on the ground that theamount paid to the petitioner was a debt accruing onaccount of the judgment of the Court and was nottaxable, but the application was rejected by theauthorities as it was stated that the petitioner had notfiled any return and, accordingly, the petitioner wasadvised to do so by the income tax authorities. 4.On the advise of the income tax authorities, thepetitioner filed a return on 27.10.2010. The prayer forrefunding the amount deducted by treating it as non-taxable on the ground that it was a judgment debt, wasnot accepted by the authorities and an order ofassessment against the petitioner under section 143(1) ofthe Act, was passed on 31.3.2011. The petitionerthereafter filed an application under section 154 of theAct, for rectification of the mistake before the authorities 4 WP No.9494/2017 on 29.4.2011 which was dismissed by the Income TaxOfÏcer, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur on 30.8.2011, however whiledismissing the application the following observations weremade by the Income Tax OfÏcer in para-21:- 4.On the advise of the income tax authorities, thepetitioner filed a return on 27.10.2010. The prayer forrefunding the amount deducted by treating it as non-taxable on the ground that it was a judgment debt, wasnot accepted by the authorities and an order ofassessment against the petitioner under section 143(1) ofthe Act, was passed on 31.3.2011. The petitionerthereafter filed an application under section 154 of theAct, for rectification of the mistake before the authorities 4 WP No.9494/2017 on 29.4.2011 which was dismissed by the Income TaxOfÏcer, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur on 30.8.2011, however whiledismissing the application the following observations weremade by the Income Tax OfÏcer in para-21:- “21. Further Section 192 of the IncomeTax Act also attracts which state that “Anyperson responsible for paying any incomechargeable under the head ‘Salary’ shall at thetime of payment deduct income-tax on theamount payable at the average rate of income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in forcefor the financial year in which the payment ismade.” However since the pay and allowancepaid to the assessee pertains to the period1.03.1996 to 16.4.2007 relief u/s 89(1) isallowable. The assessee can fle revisedapplication u/s 154 along with revisedcomputationtreatingthesubsistenceallowance as income and claiming relief u/s89(1).” (underlined by us) 5.The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appealagainst the order of the Income Tax OfÏcer, Jabalpur,which was also dismissed on 1.10.2012 afÏrming theorder passed by the Income Tax OfÏcer. The petitionerthereafter, in view of the fact that the Income Tax OfÏcerhad held that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefunder section 89(1) of the Act, which was allowable forwhich he can file a revised application under section 154 5 WP No.9494/2017 of the Act, filed a revised application before the IncomeTax OfÏcer, Jabalpur on 24.2.2014. The said applicationwas allowed by the Income Tax OfÏcer, Jabalpur by orderdated 5.12.2014 taking into consideration theobservations and the opinion expressed by the IncomeTax OfÏcer in his order dated 30.8.2011 to the effect thatthe petitioner was entitled to relief under section 89(1) ofthe Act, which was allowable and which observation wasafÏrmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6.Inspite of the aforesaid order of 5.12.2014 holdingthat the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section89(1) of the Act, on the salary income of Rs.20,90,355/-i.e., the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner, asthe amount was not paid to the petitioner, he approachedthe authorities by filing representations and gave a legalnotice to them on 19.4.2017. The petitioner wasthereafter served with the impugned notice under section154/155 of the Act, dated 9.5.2017. 7.The particular mistakes proposed to be rectified, asmentioned in the impugned notice, is as under:- “Particulars of the mistake proposedto be rectified:- On verification of the record, it is foundthat you have not shown any income in your 6 WP No.9494/2017 return of income filed for A.Y. 2009010 and alsonot claimed any relief u/s 89(1) in your return ofincome, so it can not be allowed u/s 154, asthere is no mistake apparent from the record.Thus, the order u/s 154 passed on 5.12.2014needs to be rectified by withdrawing relief ofRs.2,81,797/- allowed u/s 89(1) and to revisethe total income from Rs.20,87,090/- to Rs.NILas shown by you in the original return ofincome.” 8.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the notice hasfiled the present petition and this Court by order dated22.8.2017 directed the parties to maintain status quo. “Particulars of the mistake proposedto be rectified:- On verification of the record, it is foundthat you have not shown any income in your 6 WP No.9494/2017 return of income filed for A.Y. 2009010 and alsonot claimed any relief u/s 89(1) in your return ofincome, so it can not be allowed u/s 154, asthere is no mistake apparent from the record.Thus, the order u/s 154 passed on 5.12.2014needs to be rectified by withdrawing relief ofRs.2,81,797/- allowed u/s 89(1) and to revisethe total income from Rs.20,87,090/- to Rs.NILas shown by you in the original return ofincome.” 8.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the notice hasfiled the present petition and this Court by order dated22.8.2017 directed the parties to maintain status quo. 9.It is pertinent to note that the counsel for theRevenue accepted notice on that date and sought time toseek instructions. The petition was thereafter listed on11.9.2017 but no return was filed or submissions made bythe respondents before this Court. Therefore, on10.10.2017, the matter was again adjourned for twoweeks for filing a return as prayed for by the learnedcounsel for the respondents, with an observation that incase the return is not filed, the Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward-1(1), Jabalpur, shall remain personally present before thisCourt on 6.11.2017. 7 WP No.9494/2017 10.A return was filed by the respondents on 1.11.2017,in which it is stated that pursuant to the proceedingsunder Section 154 of the Act, initiated against thepetitioner, the respondent authorities had already passedan order under Section 154 of the Act, on 1.8.2017rectifying the mistake in the order dated 5.12.2014. Inparagraph 26 of the return the respondents havementioned that the order under 154 proceedings waspassed during the pendency of this petition on 1.8.2017after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on9.5.2017. 11.The petitioner submits that he was paid a sum ofRs.20,90,355/- pursuant to the order passed by this Courtin MCC No.960/2007 holding that the petitioner wasentitled to payment of subsistence allowance. It issubmitted that though no tax on this amount wasrequired to be deducted as the same was paid to thepetitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court,however, the authorities deliberately misconstrued theorder and by treating the amount disbursed to thepetitioner as payment of salary, refused to refund theincome tax deducted from the payment of subsistence 8 WP No.9494/2017 allowance made to the petitioner and asked him to file areturn. 12.It is submitted that the petitioner, who is a laymanand is not conversant with the provisions of the IncomeTax Act, filed a return on the instructions of the IncomeTax authorities themselves but his claim for refund wasagain rejected. It is submitted that subsequently, whenthe petitioner again filed an application for rectification,the same was dismissed on 30.8.2011 but while doing so,it was held that the petitioner's claim under Section 89(1)of the Act. is allowable and after holding so, the petitionerwas advised to file a revised application under Section154 of the Act. 13.Though the petitioner assailed the aforesaid orderbefore the CIT Appeals, the order dated 30.8.2011 wasafÏrmed by the CIT Appeals by order dated 1.10.2012afÏrming the findings recorded by the Income Tax OfÏcerto the effect that the relief under Section 89(1) of the Act,was allowable for which the petitioner can file a revisedapplication under Section 154 alongwith a revisedcomputation. It is further submitted that when thepetitioner filed such an application, he was asked tosubmit Form 10(E) giving details of his income and a 9 WP No.9494/2017 report in that regard was also called from the Bankauthorities and thereafter the petitioner's claim underSection 89(1) of the Act, was allowed by order dated5.12.2014. 13.Though the petitioner assailed the aforesaid orderbefore the CIT Appeals, the order dated 30.8.2011 wasafÏrmed by the CIT Appeals by order dated 1.10.2012afÏrming the findings recorded by the Income Tax OfÏcerto the effect that the relief under Section 89(1) of the Act,was allowable for which the petitioner can file a revisedapplication under Section 154 alongwith a revisedcomputation. It is further submitted that when thepetitioner filed such an application, he was asked tosubmit Form 10(E) giving details of his income and a 9 WP No.9494/2017 report in that regard was also called from the Bankauthorities and thereafter the petitioner's claim underSection 89(1) of the Act, was allowed by order dated5.12.2014. 14.It is submitted that in such circumstances, it is not indispute that the petitioner is entitled to refund ofRs.2,81,797/- from the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- deductedby the Bank towards Income Tax from the total amount ofsubsistence allowance disbursed to the petitioner ofRs.20,90,355/-. It is submitted that in such circumstances,the impugned notice dated 9.5.2017 seeking to rectifysome imaginary mistake in the order dated 5.12.2014 onthe ground that he had not shown any income in hisreturn for the year 2009-2010 and had initially notclaimed relief under Section 89(1) of the Act, is itselfmisconceived as there is no mistake in the order dated5.12.2014. 15.It is submitted that the petitioner was granted aninterim relief by this Court on 22.8.2017 directing theparties to maintain status quo and inspite of the fact thatthe matter was listed twice, no information was given bythe respondent authorities to this Court to the effect thatorders on the impugned notice had already been passed 10 WP No.9494/2017 by the authorities. It is submitted that the return andadditional return filed by the respondents make itabundantly clear that though orders in the 154proceedings are said to have been passed on 1.8.2017 bythe Income Tax OfÏcer, Jabalpur, no notice or intimation ofthe same was ever given to the petitioner. 16.The petitioner has pointed out that the respondentsthemselves have filed the notice said to have been issuedto the petitioner under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act,dated 2.8.2017 which is admittedly and undisputedly sentto the address of Mishra Transport Service, Sihora,Jabalpur. The petitioner has also filed a certificate issuedby Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate who is the counsel forMishra Transport, indicating that a notice of the name ofthe petitioner was received by Mishra Transport Service,as the address in the notice was clearly mentioned asMishra Transport Service. 17.It is submitted that no notice whatsoever was everissued to the petitioner by the authorities before passingof the order under Section 154 of the Act. It is submittedthat pursuant to the impugned notice issued by therespondents to the petitioner on 9.5.2017, the petitionerhad immediately filed his response on 17.5.2017 11 WP No.9494/2017 (Annexure P/16) but the authorities, while passing thealleged order on 1.8.2017 under Section 154 of the Act,has not mentioned anything about the impugned noticedated 9.5.2017 or the response submitted by thepetitioner on 17.5.2017 and has passed the order withoutconsidering the same in violation of the interim directionsissued by this Court. 17.It is submitted that no notice whatsoever was everissued to the petitioner by the authorities before passingof the order under Section 154 of the Act. It is submittedthat pursuant to the impugned notice issued by therespondents to the petitioner on 9.5.2017, the petitionerhad immediately filed his response on 17.5.2017 11 WP No.9494/2017 (Annexure P/16) but the authorities, while passing thealleged order on 1.8.2017 under Section 154 of the Act,has not mentioned anything about the impugned noticedated 9.5.2017 or the response submitted by thepetitioner on 17.5.2017 and has passed the order withoutconsidering the same in violation of the interim directionsissued by this Court. 18.It is submitted that in the said order the authoritieshave also mentioned that another notice was issued tothe petitioner on 30.6.2017 for hearing on 7.7.2017 butthe petitioner did not appear and, therefore, the orderwas passed but no such notice has been placed on record.The petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid factsand circumstances, it is apparent that the respondentauthorities have deliberated passed the back dated orderof 1.8.2017 to overcome the interim orders passed by thisCourt. In such circumstances, the petitioner submits thateven if the order under Section 154 of the Act, has beenpassed by the authorities on 1.8.2017, the same is notbinding on the petitioner as the same is in contraventionto the interim orders passed by this Court and has beenpassed without giving any opportunity of hearing ornotice to the petitioner. 19.The learned counsel for the respondents per contrasubmits that the petitioner had filed a return withoutclaiming any relief under Section 89(1) of the Act., andthe only prayer made therein was refund of the taxdeducted. It is submitted that as no relief under section89(1) of the Act, was ever claimed by the petitioner,therefore, the same could not have been allowed by theIncome Tax OfÏcer in proceedings under section 154 ofthe Act, by the impugned order dated 5.12.2014. It issubmitted that when the aforesaid aspect came to thenotice of the JCIT, Range-I, Jabalpur, he issued a letter on9.1.2015 to the Income Tax OfÏcer, Jabalpur, pointing outseveral aspects of the matter on the basis of which theimpugned notice dated 9.5.2017 was issued to thepetitioner. 20.It is submitted that though the petition was filed bythe petitioner on 5.7.2017, interim order of status quowas passed thereafter on 22.8.2017, by which date therespondent authorities had already passed the order anddecided the 154 proceedings initiated against thepetitioner pursuant to the impugned show cause noticeon 1.8.2017. It is submitted that this fact was brought to 13 WP No.9494/2017 the notice of this Court by the respondent authorities inthe return, specifically para-26. 21.The learned counsel for the respondents furthersubmits that notice of this order under section 154 of theAct, was also issued to the petitioner, however, the factthat it was sent on the address of Mishra TransportService, Sihora, Jabalpur, has not been denied and hasbeen admitted. It is submitted that in the absence of anyclaim for benefit of Section 89(1) of the Act, in the returnfiled by the petitioner, the authority concerned could nothave granted any relief to the petitioner in theproceedings under section 154 of the Act, which is aglaring and apparent mistake requiring rectification and,therefore, notice under section 154 of the Act, was issuedto the petitioner on 9.5.2017 and an order pursuantthereto has been passed withdrawing and correcting themistake committed by the authorities in the order dated5.12.2014. 22.The learned counsel for the respondents has furthersubmitted that the claim made by the petitioner undersection 89(1) of the Act, was beyond limitation and couldnot have been considered by the authority concerned inview of the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act, and in 22.The learned counsel for the respondents has furthersubmitted that the claim made by the petitioner undersection 89(1) of the Act, was beyond limitation and couldnot have been considered by the authority concerned inview of the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act, and in 14 WP No.9494/2017 such circumstances the impugned order passed by theauthorities on 5.12.2014 suffered from an apparentmistake of law which needed rectification and, therefore,the impugned notice has rightly been issued to thepetitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents hasrelied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Goetze(India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006)284 ITR 0323; Hind Wire Industries Ltd. vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, (1995) 212 ITR 0639 andOrissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 343ITR 0316. 23.Having heard the petitioner and the learned counselfor the respondents, it is observed that the fact that thepetitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 89(1) ofthe Act is an undenied and undisputed fact. It is also clearfrom a perusal of the order dated 30.08.2011 passed bythe Income Tax OfÏcer in the previous application filed bythe petitioner under Section 154 of the Act, that theIncome Tax OfÏcer in no uncertain terms has held that therelief under Section 89(1) of the Act is allowable to thepetitioner for which he can file a revised application whilerejecting the application filed by the petitioner underSection 154 of the Act. 24.It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that thisorder of the Income Tax OfÏcer has been afÏrmed inappeal by the CITA by order dated 01.10.2012. It isapparent from a perusal of the aforesaid orders that theIncome Tax OfÏcer as well as the CITA while rejecting theapplications filed by the petitioner under Section 154 ofthe Act on 30.08.2011 and 01.10.2012 respectively havecategorically held that the relief under Section 89(1) ofthe Act is allowable to the petitioner and that these ordershave neither been set aside or withdrawn and exists asthey are and have attained finality. It is also apparent thatthe subsequent order dated 05.12.2014 has been passedon the revised application filed by the petitioner, by theauthorities under Section 154 of the Act, on the basis ofand relying on the aforesaid orders of the Income TaxOfÏcer dated 30.08.2011 and the appellate order dated01.10.2012 wherein it was held that the claim of thepetitioner under section 89(1) was allowable andconsequently allowed the claim of the petitioner underSection 89(1) of the Act. 25.It is also an undisputed fact that the only groundthat has been mentioned in the impugned notice dated09.05.2017 issued under Section 154 of the Act is that the 16 WP No.9494/2017 petitioner had not shown any income in his return for theyear 2009 – 10 and had not claimed any relief underSection 89(1) of the Act in the return and therefore, noorders under Section 154 of the Act could have beenpassed by the Income Tax OfÏcer granting relief underSection 89(1) of the Act. None of the other grounds raisedand argued before this Court have been mentioned in thenotice. 26.From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the authoritieswhile issuing the impugned notice have totally ignoredthe orders passed by the Income Tax OfÏcer dated30.08.2011 and the CITA order dated 01.10.2012 whereinit has been held that relief under Section 89(1) of the Actis allowable to the petitioner for which he can file arevised application under Section 154 of the Act and thatit was pursuant to the aforesaid observations of theIncome Tax OfÏcer and the CITA that the petitioner hadfiled the revised application under Section 154 of the Act.The respondents have also overlooked the fact that thepetitioner’s claim was allowed by order dated 05.12.2014mainly in view of the previous orders dated 30.8.2011and 1.10.2012. 17 WP No.9494/2017 26.From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the authoritieswhile issuing the impugned notice have totally ignoredthe orders passed by the Income Tax OfÏcer dated30.08.2011 and the CITA order dated 01.10.2012 whereinit has been held that relief under Section 89(1) of the Actis allowable to the petitioner for which he can file arevised application under Section 154 of the Act and thatit was pursuant to the aforesaid observations of theIncome Tax OfÏcer and the CITA that the petitioner hadfiled the revised application under Section 154 of the Act.The respondents have also overlooked the fact that thepetitioner’s claim was allowed by order dated 05.12.2014mainly in view of the previous orders dated 30.8.2011and 1.10.2012. 17 WP No.9494/2017 27.The authorities have also not taken intoconsideration the fact that in the proceedings taken up bythe authorities on the revised application under Section154 of the Act, the authorities duly asked the petitioner tosubmit a form under Section 10-E of the Act and alsosought for and received information from the Bankregarding the salary paid towards subsistence allowancepursuant to the orders passed by this Court and that itwas on the basis of the aforesaid information and thedocument filed by the petitioner that benefit underSection 89(1) of the Act was given to the petitioner. 28.We are also constrained to observe that thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for therespondents to the effect that the relief under Section89(1) of the Act was barred by limitation and, therefore,could not have been allowed by the Income Tax OfÏcer,Jabalpur vide order dated 15.12.2014, does not find anymention in the particulars of the mistake that wereproposed to be rectified in the notice dated 09.05.2017and is apparently an afterthought. 29.Quite apart from the above, it is also an undisputedfact that the order of status quo was passed by this Courton 22.08.2017 and that the respondents authorities in the 18 WP No.9494/2017 return have filed order dated 01.08.2017 passed by theauthorities under Section 154 of the Act pursuant to thenotice issued to the petitioner on 09.05.2017, but the saidorder was sent on the address of the Mishra TransportService, Sihora, Jabalpur and was never communicated tothe petitioner and that the petitioner came to know aboutthe same only when the return was filed by therespondents. It is also evident from a perusal of the orderdated 01.08.2017 that the said order does not make anymention of the impugned notice dated 09.05.2017 and infact the only notice mentioned therein is notice dated30.06.2017 said to have been issued by the authoritiesconcerned to the petitioner for hearing 07.07.2017, butno copies of the notice or documents in support of thesaid avertments made in the order dated 01.08.2017have been placed before this Court. 30.A perusal of the observations made by the IncomeTax OfÏcer in the order dated 1.8.2017 makes it furtherclear that the order has been passed not on the basis ofany law but on the basis of the detailed instructionsissued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I,Jabalpur, in its letter dated 25.5.2016 and, therefore,there is no independent application of mind by the 19 WP No.9494/2017 income tax authorities to the issues raised therein orinvolved in the case. 30.A perusal of the observations made by the IncomeTax OfÏcer in the order dated 1.8.2017 makes it furtherclear that the order has been passed not on the basis ofany law but on the basis of the detailed instructionsissued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I,Jabalpur, in its letter dated 25.5.2016 and, therefore,there is no independent application of mind by the 19 WP No.9494/2017 income tax authorities to the issues raised therein orinvolved in the case. 31.It is also apparent that the Income Tax authoritieswhile passing the order dated 1.8.2017, Annexure R-6,has totally ignored and omitted to take note of thefindings recorded by the Income Tax OfÏcer in its orderdated 30.8.2011 to the effect that the relief under section89(1) of the Act, is allowable to the petitioner and forwhich purpose he could have filed a revised applicationunder section 154 of the Act, which has been afÏrmedand confirmed by the CITA by order dated 1.10.2017. Theauthorities have simply taken note of the fact that theapplication under section 154 of the Act, was dismissedwithout taking note of the aforesaid finding and hasrevised the order. 32.In such circumstances, we are of the consideredopinion that the proceedings sought to be initiated by therespondents against the petitioner vide the impugnedorder dated 9.5.2017 and decided against him by orderdated 1.8.2017 are totally misplaced and misconceivedand perverse, moreso as they have been passed totallyignoring the final and binding orders passed by the 20 WP No.9494/2017 Income Tax OfÏcer dated 30.8.2011 and the CITA dated1.10.2012 which had become final. 33.We are also of the opinion that the very initiation ofthe impugned Section 154 proceedings was misconceivedand uncalled for as there was no mistake in the previousorders requiring rectification in view of the admitted andundisputed fact that the petitioner is entitled to claimbenefit under Section 89(1) of the Act, and that his claimthereunder is allowable. 34.In the circumstances the petition filed by thepetitioner is allowed, the impugned show cause noticedated 9.5.2017 and the subsequent order dated 1.8.2017are quashed and it is directed that the petitioner isentitled to and shall be paid his dues mentioned in orderdated 5.12.2014 by the Income Tax Department withintwo months with allowable interest. 35.The petition stands allowed. There shall be no orderas to costs. (R. S. JHA) J U D G E (SANJAY DWIVEDI)J U D G E mms/-