https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285160 Where the Income-tax Act prescribed a mandatory refund procedure, a refund claim had to be made in the prescribed form, signed, verified, and supported by the required return; an informal letter did not constitute a valid application under Section 48. A communication that substantively rejected the claim, even without express refusal language, was treated as an appealable order under Section 30. By contrast, a later letter merely stating that no valid refund application had been filed was not itself an appealable refusal, and the Tribunal was justified in declining to examine the merits of the claimed exemption or refund. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2019 10:38:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285160 Where the Income-tax Act prescribed a mandatory refund procedure, a refund claim had to be made in the prescribed form, signed, verified, and supported by the required return; an informal letter did not constitute a valid application under Section 48. A communication that substantively rejected the claim, even without express refusal language, was treated as an appealable order under Section 30. By contrast, a later letter merely stating that no valid refund application had been filed was not itself an appealable refusal, and the Tribunal was justified in declining to examine the merits of the claimed exemption or refund. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285160