TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) by the respondent/Authorities. 2. Facts relevant for the present case is, after a survey under Section 133A of the Act on 12.1.2001, the petitioner filed its returns for the assessment years 1991- 92 to 1998-99 and paid tax on self-assessment under Section 140A of the Act; on 8.2.2006, revised returns was filed claiming refund of excess tax paid. The third respondent/Assessing Officer vide his letter Annexure-D declined to consider the claim on the ground that original returns of income and revised returns were filed belatedly. The revision filed under Section 264 of the Act thereon before the first respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax was rejected on the sole ground that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Revisional Authority failed to exercise his jurisdiction over the order of Assessing Authority, which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee/petitioner. The payment made by the assessee was not self-assessment Tax and there were no valid proceedings under the Act. The calculation of interest by the assessee was wrong and the second respondent by appreciating the said fact should have directed the Authorities to refund the interest as prayed by petitioner. Without verifying the error or otherwise of calculation of interest, the second respondent has rejected waiver of interest for extraneous reasons, thus, the orders at Annexures-F and H be quashed directing Authorities to waive interest/refund the excess tax paid to the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional Authority had every authority over the returns and revised returns of the petitioner, though was not assessed by the Assessing Officer. Instead of disposing off the revision petition on its merits, it is disposed with a sweeping remark that no order is passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. This Court in the matter of A. Balakrishnan v. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 227 (Kar.) held that the Income-tax authorities are duty bound to process a return claiming refund even though filed beyond the period prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, said finding was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The Apex Court in CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) & CIT v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....33A of the Act was an administrative one, the respondent would not be in a better position. What the appellant complains is that the ITO in terms of section 29 of the Act is under an obligation to issue a demand notice. If the said contention was correct, he did not discharge the duty imposed on him by the statute. If the CIT only made an administrative order in refusing to give any direction to the ITO, it would not exonerate the said officer from discharging his statutory duty. In that event the assessee would certainly be entitled to approach the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the ITO to discharge his statutory duty. We, therefore, reject the preliminary ....