TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders Revenue to refund deceased Assessee's heir promptly, violating Income Tax Act; stay on recovery measures granted.</h1> <h3>Vijay Singh Kadan Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another</h3> Vijay Singh Kadan Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Another - [2016] 384 ITR 69 Issues:Non-compliance with court directions for refund to deceased Assessee's legal heir for AY 2006-07.Analysis:The deceased Assessee filed a return for AY 2006-07, claiming tax exemption on long term capital gains from the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order assessing total income at a higher amount, denying the claimed exemption. The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the CIT (A), and both parties appealed to the ITAT. The ITAT later allowed the Assessee's appeal, entitling the Assessee to a refund of the excess tax paid. Following the Assessee's death, the legal heir pursued the matter, requesting the refund with statutory interest. Despite court directions, the Revenue delayed the refund, citing adjustments against demands for other assessment years.The legal heir contended that the adjustment without prior intimation or opportunity to be heard was a violation of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. The court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the discretionary nature of set-off under Section 245, requiring intimation to the Assessee before adjustment. The Revenue's explanation of withholding pending verification was deemed unacceptable, especially since the demands were under appeal with a stay application. Issuing a notice under Section 245 after court notice did not rectify the violation.Consequently, the court directed the Revenue to issue the balance refund with interest promptly, without delay. Additionally, the CIT (A) was instructed to decide on the stay application related to the demand for another assessment year within a specified timeframe. Coercive steps for recovery were prohibited until the CIT (A) decision. Any non-compliance with the court's directions allowed the Petitioner to seek redress from the court. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
