LAWS(MAD)-1998-9-35

R SESHAMMAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On September 10, 1998
R. SESHAMMAL Appellant
V/S
INCOME TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only defence put forward by the respondents in this writ petition for the refusal to refund the amount paid by the petitioner under the mistaken notion that tax was payable even though it was not required to be paid, is that the refund is permissible only when the person who paid the amount is found to be one who was required to pay the tax, and that the amount, refund of which is claimed is in excess of what be was required to be paid as tax It is not in dispute that even though proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Act, those proceedings were dropped by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that there was no chargeable income, on which tax could be levied. When he passed that order, he had before him the return which had been filed by the petitioner, wherein the income for the relevant assessment year was shown as "nil" and the details of the amounts paid as advance tax were also set out.

(2.) THE petitioner had paid Rs. 3, 324 on September 6, 1982, a similar sum of Rs. 3, 324, on December 13, 1982, and yet another sum of Rs. 37, 160 on March 2, 1983, in all totalling Rs. 43, 808. THE Income-tax Officer did not find any inaccuracy in the return submitted by the assessee. THE petitioner received an intimation from the Income-tax Officer dated July 17, 1990, refusing to refund the amount to her on the ground that the return of income had not been filed voluntarily before the Income-tax Officer in time as per section 139(1) of the Act and that the refund had also not been applied for by the assessee in time under section 237 of the Act.THE fact that the petitioner had paid the monies to the Government under the mistaken notion that the association of persons would be liable for tax even when the assessment was not required to be made as an association of persons that the amount though paid was not actually required to be paid and that the State has not refunded those amounts by taking advantage of the mistake committed by the payer is not in dispute.