TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60,60,234 and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 4,29,000 by way of tax. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appeal was allowed. The Income-tax Officer gave effect to the appellate order and revised the total assessable income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83 as per the directions given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given to the petitioner and that gave rise to the filing of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India in this court on July 8, 1985. The petition was duly admitted on July 15, 1985, and the hearing was expedited. The petition was admitted by me, as the respondents, in spite of adjournment, could not explain why the refund was not given. The respondents have not file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermissible for the Income-tax Officer to adjust the amount of refund due in respect of the earlier assessment order without giving prior notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Shri Joshi relies upon the provisions of section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as under: " 245. Where under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer did not give any intimation to the petitioner before making adjustment while passing the assessment order for the assessment year 1983-84. In my judgment, the action of the Income-tax Officer is wholly illegal and the respondents were clearly in error in not refunding the amount of Rs. 4,26,090 to the petitioner forthwith. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
