VAGHJIBHAI S BISHNOI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned advocate Ms. Paurami B. Sheth appears and waives 1. service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred for seeking refund of Rs. 2,11,415/=, with the following factual background.

(3.) IN response to the issuance of the notice, the respondent no.2 filed affidavitinreply, inter alia, admitting filing of ereturn by the petitioner for the A.Y 201011 on 20th September 2010 declaring his total income at Rs. 8,61,077/= and claiming refund of Rs. 2,11,415/=; after adjusting TDS of Rs. 3,78,608/= against tax payable of Rs. 1,67,193/=. It is also contended that the return of the petitioner assessee was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act on 17th March 2011 by the Centralized Processing Centre ["CPC" for short], Bangalore. However, such adjustment of TDS was not granted and the tax payable was determined at Rs. 1,93,429/=; which included both ­ Tax and the interest, being a sum of Rs. 1,67,193/= and Rs. 26,235/= respectively. It is also contended that the petitioner failed to furnish all the relevant information as was required under Section 139 (1) of the Act in the ereturn, and therefore, the adjustment of TDS was not allowed. A stand is further taken by the respondent no. 2 inter alia that he has not been transferred details of the ereturn by the respondent no.1 CPC, Bangalore, and therefore, the respondent no. 2 is not authorized to accede to any request of the assessee. It is further admitted that the rectification application preferred by the petitioner was attended to by the CPC, Bangalore on 27th October 2011 by passing an order under section 154 of the Act, wherein the respondent no.2 observed as follow :