T M VARGHESE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an individual assessee under the second respondent. The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Ext.P1 order of the Commissioner rejecting the claim of refund made by the petitioner in the year 1992-93.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the above writ petition is that, the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1992-93 was completed and there were amounts remaining due and payable to the department as per the assessment completed for the said year. The petitioner in the subsequent years was also assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and in the year 1996-97 an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dated 26.03.1997 was allegedly sent to the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the receipt of the same. The above mentioned intimation under Section 143(1)(a), according to the department, clearly spoke of a refund for the year 1996-97 coming to Rs.1,50,000/- which together with interest under Section 244A was shown as adjusted towards the interest arrears of 1992-93.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 order would clearly show that the intimation under Section 143(1) (a) for the year 1996-97 was not received by the petitioner and that the certificate issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme did not reflect the deduction of the adjustment of the refund for the year 1996-97. The learned Standing Counsel for the department however would contend that Ext.P1 would only show that an acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice under Section 143 (1)(a) was not in the files. The despatch of the notice was evidenced from the file and the fact that the petitioner had been claiming the deduction for Rs. 1,66,500/-, even going by Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner was aware of the refund of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest of Rs. 16,500/- and the consequent adjustment. According to the learned Standing Counsel this is so evident since the refund was of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 16,500/- rupees was towards interest, which the petitioner would not have been known about without the receipt of the intimation under Section 143(1)(a). It is also pointed out that the Commissioner had noticed in Ext.P1 order as to the long delay in making an application for revision; which again was not against a specific order. It was also noticed that even if Ext.P3 letter dated 08.01.2001 is treated as the impugned order the revision filed in the year 2004 is grossly delayed.