HASMUKHALAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this petition shall also govern the disposal of another connected petition being W. P. No. 918 of 2000. as in both these petitions, a common question of law is involved. THE facts in brief that led to the filing of the writ need mention. THE petitioner is an assessee within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He is being assessed as an individual. He is engaged in the business of jewellery and money-lending.

(2.) THAT for the assessment years 1986-87, 1988-89 to 1992-93. the petitioner was assessed for his income by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since some of the orders were against the petitioner, he filed appeals to the appellate authority (Commissioner of Appeals). The appellate authority by its orders (annexures P-1 to P-6) partly allowed these appeals. As a result of these appellate orders, the petitioner became entitled to receive some amount by way of refund. It is not in dispute that these appellate orders became final as the same were not questioned in further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, nor the petitioner took them in further appeal. The petitioner then on May 1, 1999, made an application to the Assessing Officer (annexures P-7 to P-12) praying for refund amount which has become payable to him as a consequence of the appellate orders. By letter dated June 28, 1999 (annexure P-13), the Assessing Officer declined to refund the amount to the petitioner on the ground that since the Department has to recover a total outstanding of Rs. 37,49,406 from the deceased father of the petitioner for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1990-91 and since, the petitioner has become or in other words is a legal representative of his late father under Section 159(1) of the Act and hence, the refund amount payable to the petitioner be not adjusted against the dues of the late father. It is against this letter/order, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record of the case in the light of relevant legal provisions applicable to the issue, I find merit in this writ and it deserves to be allowed thereby resulting in quashing of the impugned order.