Wp(C)/16124/2023 Of Mathew Moozhayil Mathew v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16124 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: MATHEW MOOZHAYIL MATHEWAGED 73 YEARSS/O.THOMAS MOOZHAYIL MATHEW, 11D, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020BY ADVS.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFITHAJUNA MARIA FRANCIS RESPONDENT/S: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1)), DR.S.P.MUKHARJEE CIVICCENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 1100022COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R. BUILDING ANNEXE, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 5600013COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKARAIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 6820114DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 BY ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 C.S DIAS,J. --------------------------- WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 ----------------------------- Dated this the 6[th] day of June, 2023[ .] JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to forthwith refund an amount of Rs.18,91,805/- to the petitioner in compliance of Exts P4 and P6 orders. 2.The petitioner’s case is that he had filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-2019. Ext P1 is the computation of total income along with the return submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with Ext P2 notice under Sec.139(9) of the Income Tax Act, alleging that the gross receipts shown in Form 26AS on which credit for TDS has been WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 claimed was higher than the total of the receipts shown under all heads of income. Later, the petitioner was served with a notice alleging that though the credit for Tax Deducted at Source had been claimed, there was no corresponding receipts. The petitioner had submitted a letter dated 28.5.2020 claiming refund of Rs.18,91,805/-. Thereafter, he also submitted a representation before the first respondent. As there was inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed WP(C)No.28512/2021 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext P3 judgment, directing the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s application. Consequent to Ext P3 judgment, the earlier assessment order was set aside on WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 finding that there was a mistake in computation of CPC. Thereafter, by Ext P5 order, the fourth respondent re-computed the income of the petitioner and held that he is entitled for a refund of Rs.18,91,805/-. Subsequently, the fourth respondent also issued Ext P6 rectification order. Although Exts P4 to P6 were passed, the respondents have till date not refunded the amount due to the petitioner. Hence thewrit petition. 3.Heard; Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents. WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 4.Sri.Jose Joseph submitted that, Ext P6 order has been approved by the Additional Commissioner on 24.1.2023. The fourth respondent has already communicated the order to the second respondent. A reminder dated 29.5.2023 was also issued to process the refund, which is under consideration. 5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P6 order was passed on 23.1.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows: The second respondent is directed to refund the amount covered by Ext P6 to the petitioner, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- sks/6.6.2023 has been approved by the Additional Commissioner on 24.1.2023. The fourth respondent has already communicated the order to the second respondent. A reminder dated 29.5.2023 was also issued to process the refund, which is under consideration. 5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P6 order was passed on 23.1.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows: The second respondent is directed to refund the amount covered by Ext P6 to the petitioner, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- sks/6.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16124/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ALONG WITH RETURN SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE Exhibit P3Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/06/2022 IN W.P(C) 28512/2021TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GIVE EFFECT ORDER DATED 30/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 23/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF EMAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 20/02/2023 TO 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24/04/2023