|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0193 (MP-HC) : (2021) 278 TAXMAN 0048
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Where income earned by the petitioner was assessable to income tax and he was under an obligation under section 139 to furnish a return of income during the previous year and it was not the case of petitioner that excess amount deposited towards advance tax was illegally collected by the Department as would entitle her for the refund of the same without following the due procedure prescribed under Chapter XIX of the Act of 1961 read with rule 41 of the Rules of 1962, therefore, petition failed and was dismissed.
Writ - Refund claim of excess deposit of advance tax - Application filed by petitioner for refund has been rejected -
Petitioner sold a hall and claimed long term capital gain. It was urged that the petitioner actually wanted to deposit advance tax of Rs. 4,50,000 however, while preparing the challan, a bona fide mistake occurred and in place of Rs. 4,50,000 the challan was prepared for Rs. 45,00,000. Petitioner realising the mistake committed in depositing the advance tax of Rs. 45,00,000 in place of Rs. 4,50,000 and the fact that the same would be returned in normal course only after submission of return whereas the money was required for solemnizing the marriage of her daughter. Petitioner filed an application before CIT for refund of excess amount of tax which came to be rejected. Held: It was not in dispute that income earned by the petitioner is assessable to income tax and is under an obligation under section 139 to furnish a return of income during the previous year. Provisions contained under section 239 of 1961 Act read with rule 41 (2) of the 1962 Rules that the claim for refund can be only on completion of previous year which in the present case would be after 31-3-2021. It was not the case of the petitioner that excess amount deposited by the petitioner towards advance tax was illegally collected by the department as would entitle her for the refund of the same without following the due procedure prescribed under Chapter XIX of the Act of 1961 read with rule 41 of the Rules of 1962. Thus, petition failed and accordingly dismissed.
REFERRED : 1965 TaxPub(DT) 0215 (SC) and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1006.
FAVOUR : Petition dismissed.
IN THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT