TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 1998-99, relevant for the financial year that ended on 31.03.1998, the assessee received rents from its properties. While remitting the rent, the tenants had deducted tax and deposited the same with the banks. The following are the details of the tax deducted from the rents: - Sl. No. Name T.D.S. Amount Deposited with 1. M/s. Roland Berger Rs. 7,27,353/- PNB, G.K. I, New Delhi 2. Enterprise Nexus communication Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 1,50,000/- S.B.I., Worli (N), Mumbai Rs. 8,77,353/- 2. In the return of income filed on 10.10.2000, the petitioner mentioned in Part-III of the return that an amount of Rs. 8,77,353/-, being the tax deducted at source as above, was refundable. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a philanthropic or charitable organization established for the benefit of the differently-abled and for the empowerment of women, the refusal to refund the tax deducted at source has caused genuine financial hardship and has impeded the charitable activities of the petitioner. It is further urged that the relevant tax deduction certificates and certificates from the banks for deposit of the tax were furnished to the respondent and in these circumstances, the order passed by the respondent refusing to condone the delay in filing the return of income and in refunding the TDS was arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondent to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent from the concerned assessing officer who reported that there existed no cause for the delay in filing the return. It is emphasised that the return was filed without the original TDS certificates and in the absence of the original certificates, no refund can be granted since there is no proof for making the deposit. It is further stated that the certificates from the banks furnished by the assessee were bereft of any detail and therefore the deposit cannot be traced to the credit of the petitioner and, therefore, no action can be taken on the basis of such certificates. It is, thus, urged on behalf of the revenue that the petition be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the return of income was filed beyond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... certificates along with the return of income and this is evident from the fact that in the column showing the enclosures to the return of income, the petitioner has not mentioned that any original TDS certificates were enclosed. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence for the tax deducted at source. In the course of the correspondence with the income tax authorities the petitioner was able to file only copies of the TDS certificates in Form No.16A, but the originals were not produced or filed. It would be contrary to law to grant refunds on the basis of the photocopies of the certificates without the originals being produced for verification or filed. The furnishing of the bank certificates also does not take the case of the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose of processing the application filed by the petitioner. The reason advanced by the petitioner for the delay in filing the return of income is that one Bhai Mohan Singh, the treasurer of the petitioner, who signed the belated return of income was out of the country. This reason was not found correct by the respondent, since he noticed that the Form No.10, which was annexed to the return of income was dated 30.10.1998 and was signed by the treasurer himself. He had also signed the audited accounts attached to the return and these accounts were signed on 21.05.1999; therefore the reasons for the delay in filing the return of income were found to be factually incorrect by the respondent even on the basis of return and the annexures thereto.....