TARSEM KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner is to quash the orders dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P-8), dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P-18) and dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P-20) and to refund the amount of excess tax paid along with interest in terms of revised return filed on 26.9.2006 (Annexure P-3). Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein are that the petitioner deposited income tax for the assessment year 2005-06 vide challan dated 11.5.2004 (Annexure P-1) amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/-. The petitioner filed his original return for the assessment year 2005-06 on 26.7.2005 (Annexure P-2) declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,97,960/- on which the petitioner had deposited Rs. 12,336/- as tax and Rs. 1,188/- as interest. However, the petitioner had omitted to claim the credit of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revised return on 26.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) claiming refund of Rs. 3,61,188/-. An application dated 7.3.2008 (Annexure P-4) was submitted by the petitioner and thereafter various reminders were sent to the Assessing Officer for refund of the said amount. The original return of the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") on 8.12.2005 and a refund of Rs. 240/- was issued vide voucher dated 29.12.2005. Thereafter the petitioner submitted various applications to the authorities for refund of Rs. 3,61,188/- but to no avail. However, vide order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P-18), respondent No. 3 declined the claim of the assesses for refund on the ground that the revised return filed by him was not a valid return. The petitioner thereafter sent a letter dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P-19) to respondent No. 1 for supply of copy of intimation of the original return along with the refund and interest. Respondent No. 2 vide letter/order dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P-20) declined the claim of refund of the assessee on the similar grounds. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed the original return on 26.7.2005 for the assessment year 2005-06 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 8.12.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revised return on 26.9.2006 under Section 139(5) of the Act in which a refund of Rs. 3,61,188/- was claimed. The said refund had been illegally declined to the assessee on the ground that the revised return which was filed was non-est.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.