TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers. In the present case, the dispute is lingering since quite some time. In any case, the delay is not gross and the repercussion in law is not widespread. We may recall the last date for filing refund claim under the scheme was 31.03.2008. The petitioner upon coming to realize that excess deduction has been made and deposited with the Government, approached the appropriate authority under letter dated 15.12.2008. Thus we propose to condone the delay here itself and then require the competent authority before whom the petitioner's application for refund is pending to decide the same on merits. - Special Civil Application No. 22195 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be placed on a circular dated 23.10.2007 issued by the CBDT providing the procedure for refund of tax deducted under section 195 of the Act. There does not appear to be dispute that the petitioner's case would fall within the said circular and provided the relevant conditions are satisfied, the petitioner could claim the return of such excess tax deducted at source. This circular however contained a limitation clause for making applications for refund which reads as under: 9. The limitation for making a claim of refund under this circular shall be two years from the end of the financial year in which tax is deducted at source. However, all cases for claim of refund under items to (i) of paragraph 2 which were pending before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shold, Commissioner believed that the application is belated. 7. In our opinion, if the petitioner is correct in pointing out that there has been a clear excess deduction of TDS and in depositing the Government revenue, subject to fulfillment of conditions of the scheme, petitioner must receive refund thereof. Unless the delay is gross or intentional or arising out of inaction and lethargy on the part of the petitioner, tax mistakenly deposited cannot be retained by the Government on the ground of delay. 8. Quite apart from the fact whether the authority itself under the scheme had power to condone the delay, section 119 of the Act clearly empowers the CBDT to do so. Subsection (1) of section 119 gives a power to the CBDT to issue suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
