A BALAKRISHNAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was an employee in the 1st respondent -Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31. 3. 2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/ -. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,33/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.

(2.) IT is the version of the petitioner that in respect of the amount that he has received in terms of the provisions of Section 10 (10) (c), 173 (1) and 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] read with Rules 2 (A) (A), the petitioner was not liable for payment of any tax and the amount of Rs. 29,331/- deducted on the amount of rs. 1,01,270/- purporting to be on the salary part of the assessee was to be refunded even in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE and ANOTHER vs. SURENDRA PRABHU 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB)

(3.) IT appears the petitioner had filed a return in Form No. 2-D seeking refund of this amount. A copy of the return is produced as annexure-C to the writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Income Tax Authorities did not respond to the return filed by the petitioner in Form 2-D and as a consequence the petitioner pressed into service the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 by filing an application on 18. 7. 2006, copy at Annexure-D to the petition. It is in response to this, the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore -5, has intimated the petitioner that return of income is not a valid return and cannot be processed as it has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 139 of the Act.