NIRANJAN DASS Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner sought a refund of the tax paid by him. The request of the petitioner was declined by the Director, CBDT by an order dt. 6th June, 2003. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the claim made by the petitioner being belated, did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of s. 239 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such could not be entertained. Sec. 239(2) of the Act, which is relevant for the present controversy, is being extracted hereunder :

(2.) WE have perused s. 119 of the Act, extracted in the writ petition. It is not possible for us to accept that the statutory provision incorporated under s. 239 of the Act, is amenable to relaxation at the hands of the Board through instructions under s. 119 of the Act.

(3.) THE instant order shall not affect any other remedy that may be available to the petitioner.