MATHEW MOOZHAYIL MATHEW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16124/2023HC KeralaKLHC01034995202306 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, noted that Ext P6 order was passed on 23.1.2023. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission that the refund process was underway, with communication to the relevant authority and a reminder issued. Given the delay and the existence of a specific order determining the refund amount, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)) to refund the amount covered by Ext P6 to the petitioner. The direction was to process the refund in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The principle established is that once an income tax refund is determined by a valid order, the tax authorities have a duty to process and disburse it promptly, and courts can intervene to ensure compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mathew Moozhayil Mathew, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 18,91,805/-. The petitioner had filed his income tax return for assessment year 2018-2019. Notices were issued alleging discrepancies between Form 26AS and the declared income, specifically regarding TDS credit without corresponding receipts. After initial inaction, the petitioner filed a previous writ petition (WP(C)No.28512/2021), which led to the setting aside of the earlier assessment order due to a computation mistake by the CPC. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax re-computed the income and determined a refund of Rs. 18,91,805/-, which was also confirmed by a rectification order. Despite these orders, the refund had not been processed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are liable to forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 18,91,805/- to the petitioner in compliance with Exts P4 and P6 orders. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that despite the orders (Exts P4, P5, and P6) determining his entitlement to a refund of Rs. 18,91,805/-, the respondents have failed to process and refund the amount, necessitating the present writ petition for immediate action. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, submitted that Ext P6 order was approved by the Additional Commissioner on 24.1.2023, communicated to the second respondent, and a reminder was issued on 29.5.2023 for processing the refund, which is currently under consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16124 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: MATHEW MOOZHAYIL MATHEW AGED 73 YEARS S/O.THOMAS MOOZHAYIL MATHEW, 11D, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020 BY ADVS. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI THAJUNA MARIA FRANCIS RESPONDENT/S: 1 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1)), DR.S.P.MUKHARJEE CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R. BUILDING ANNEXE, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560001 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARAIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 BY ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 C.S DIAS,J. --------------------------- WP(C) No.16124 of 2023 ----------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2023 .

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to forthwith refund an amount of Rs.18,91,805/- to the petitioner in compliance of Exts P4 and P6 orders.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that he had filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-2019. Ext P1 is the computation of total income along with the return submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with Ext P2 notice under Sec.139(9) of the Income Tax Act, alleging that the gross receipts shown in Form 26AS on which credit for TDS has been claimed was higher than the total of the receipts shown under all heads of income. Later, the petitioner was served with a notice alleging that though the credit for Tax Deducted at Source had been claimed, there was no corresponding receipts. The petitioner had submitted a letter dated 28.5.2020 claiming refund of Rs.18,91,805/-. Thereafter, he also submitted a representation before the first respondent. As there was inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed WP(C)No.28512/2021 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext P3 judgment, directing the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s application. Consequent to Ext P3 judgment, the earlier assessment order was set aside on finding that there was a mistake in computation of CPC. Thereafter, by Ext P5 order, the fourth respondent re-computed the income of the petitioner and held that he is entitled for a refund of Rs.18,91,805/-. Subsequently, the fourth respondent also issued Ext P6 rectification order. Although Exts P4 to P6 were passed, the respondents have till date not refunded the amount due to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Sri.Jose Joseph submitted that, Ext P6 order has been approved by the Additional Commissioner on 24.1.2023. The fourth respondent has already communicated the order to the second respondent. A reminder dated 29.5.2023 was also issued to process the refund, which is under consideration.

5.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P6 order was passed on 23.1.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows: The second respondent is directed to refund the amount covered by Ext P6 to the petitioner, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. sks/6.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16124/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ALONG WITH RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018- 2019 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/06/2022 IN W.P(C) 28512/2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GIVE EFFECT ORDER DATED 30/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 23/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 20/02/2023 TO 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24/04/2023

More judgments on Section 139(9)

All 234 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →