TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Petition for Refund of Excess Advance Tax Dismissed Due to Time-Barred Claim</h1> The court dismissed the petition seeking a refund of excess advance tax deposited for Assessment Year 2000-01, along with interest and costs. The court ... Refund of the excess advance tax deposited by the Petitioner - Also seeking interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of original challan up to the date of realization of such amount - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the Petitioner in the year 2021 cannot seek refund of the excess advance tax deposited for the Assessment Year 2000-01, as it is a stale claim. It is settled law that representations made by the Petitioner would not extend the period of limitation. In any event, the Bank vide letter dated 13th May, 2016 had informed the Respondent that it has no record with regard to the excess payment made by the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2000-01. No proceeding had been filed by the petitioner within three years from the said date. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Issues:Seeking refund of excess advance tax deposited for Assessment Year 2000-01 along with interest and costs.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of excess advance tax amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 deposited for the Assessment Year 2000-01, along with interest at 12% from the date of deposit of the original challan. The petitioner also requested an expedited adjudication of the claim and payment of Rs. 5 lakhs towards the cost of the proceedings and mental harassment. The petitioner had initially misplaced the original challan but later found it, submitting it to the Income Tax Office for rectification. The bank verified the payment made by the petitioner, but due to the bank's record destruction policy, it could not provide specific details. The court noted that the petitioner's claim for refund in 2021 for the year 2000-01 was time-barred as per the limitation period. The court held that representations made by the petitioner would not extend the period of limitation, and since no proceeding was filed within three years from the bank's response date, the petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. The court ordered the dismissal of the petition and directed the order to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the counsel via email.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
