TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by the department no revision can be ordered at this stage and the petitioner's claims for the same is devoid of merit. - WP(C).No. 28378 of 2004 (T) - - - Dated:- 23-7-2012 - MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. For Appellant: SRI.K.R.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. For Respondent: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ,SR.STANDING COUNSEL FOR I.T. J U D G M E NT The petitioner is an individual assessee under the second respondent. The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Ext.P1 order of the Commissioner rejecting the claim of refund made by the petitioner in the year 1992-93. 2. The brief facts leading to the above writ petition is that, the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1992-93 was completed and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- as refund due from the department in the year 1996-97; which the department claimed as having been adjusted against the dues of 1992-93. Since the demand intimated to the authority under the scheme did not show such adjustment, it was contented that the said amounts are liable to be refunded by the department to the petitioner. The petitioner had first made such a request by letter dated 04.01.2001 produced as Ext.P2 in the original petition. On being issued with Ext.P3 rejection letter the petitioner was before the first appellate authority by way of an appeal which was withdrawn by Ext.P6. The subsequent application for revision by Ext.P7 dated 26.02.2004 was dismissed by the Commissioner by Ext.P1 order. 5. The learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds with reference to the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme,1998. It is admitted that for the year 1996-97 there was refund of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amounts together with interest coming to Rs. 16,500/- was adjusted towards the interest of the arrears for the year 1992-93. The same was also intimated by a notice under Section 143(1)(a) to the petitioner. Though the petitioner would take a contention that he did not receive the same; from the facts discernible as also the averments made by the petitioner, it is clear that he was aware of such a refund which along with interest was adjusted towards the year 1992-93. Before the authority under the Scheme also, the petitioner did not choose to make any objection regarding the repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax, Kerala II, Ernakulam, and others (1984 150 ITR 105) where in a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the duty of the Income Tax Department to assist the tax payer in getting eligible relief. In the present case; true, the assessing Officer, the second respondent had not computed the demand of the year 1992- 93 properly; atleast with respect to the interest component. However, as noticed above even if the reduction was reflected before the authority under the Scheme that would not have made any difference since the interest component was not at all taken into account for deciding the liability under the scheme. In such circumstances, I am afraid, the Division Bench decision does not help the petitioner in any manner. The adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
