Court denies refund of TDS based on accepted self-assessment. Seek refund via revised returns.

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of taxes deposited at source based on a TDS certificate as the self-assessment had been accepted. The court emphasized that any revision for refund should be sought before the assessing authority and directed the petitioner to file revised returns for refund, with the possibility of condoning delays. The court clarified that the revision petition under Section 264 was not maintainable and disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the assessing authority for refund based on revised returns.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund of taxes deposited at source based on TDS certificate.
2. Validity of revision petition filed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the amendment to section 143(5) of the Act.
4. Jurisdiction to seek revision of self-assessment for refund.

Entitlement to Refund of Taxes Deposited at Source:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order by the CIT and to direct refund of taxes deposited at source, claiming that the TDS deducted by the employer on shares allotted should be refunded as they were not perks. The petitioner argued that as per court judgments, the TDS deducted on shares was refundable, and the revision by the CIT should have been entertained. However, the respondent contended that the self-assessment had been accepted, and any revision for refund should be sought before the assessing authority. The court considered the deletion of Explanation to section 143 and whether it applies to the assessment or financial year.

Validity of Revision Petition under Section 264:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the revision petition seeking refund, arguing that the revision should have been entertained based on court decisions stating that the TDS deducted on shares was not perks. The respondent argued that directly approaching the CIT for revision was not maintainable, and any refund application should be filed before the assessing authority. The court analyzed the implications of the deletion of Explanation to section 143 and its effect on revision petitions.

Interpretation of Amendment to Section 143(5) of the Act:
The court considered whether the omission of the Explanation to section 143(5) should be applied based on the assessment year or financial year. Referring to previous judgments, the court discussed the relevance of the amendment to the assessment year and the implications of the deletion of the Explanation. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to approach the assessing authority for refund based on the Tribunal's findings.

Jurisdiction to Seek Revision of Self-Assessment for Refund:
The court clarified that the petitioner should pursue the assessing authority for refund based on the Tribunal's decision that no tax should be deducted on shares until the lock-in period expires. Emphasizing that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, the court directed the petitioner to file revised returns with the assessing authority for refund, with the possibility of condoning any delays. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the assessing authority for refund based on revised returns.

---