1986 (3) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome-tax due from the petitioner every month and credited the same to the Government. While the petitioner was working at Delhi, he was borne on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Delhi. For the aforesaid assessment period, the employer had deducted a sum of Rs. 17,439.25 and had credited the same to the Government. On July 1. 1974, the petitioner filed his return under the Act before the Income-tax Officer, inter alia, showing that the amount of Rs. 17,439.25 deducted at source by his employer and paid to the Government, was the correct taxes due from him and that he was not due in any further sum as taxes to the Government. For a variety of reasons, with which we are not now concerned, the Income-tax Officer did not complete the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, in any event, to the refund of Rs. 863 as demanded on September 13, 1978. Shri P. A. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, or the Income-tax Officer, Bangalore, has not made any assessment against his client for the assessment year 1974-75 within the time permitted by law and, therefore, all earlier payments made by Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. had to be treated as payments made or received without the authority of law and the respondents be directed to refund the whole of the taxes paid with interest due thereon under the Act. In support of his contention, Shri Bhat strongly relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rofessional advice, found that he had paid a sum of Rs. 863 in excess towards taxes for the relevant assessment year and made a demand for refund of that amount only and did not make any demand for refund of all the taxes paid by him on the ground that there has been no assessment made against him. Shri Bhat vehemently contends that the petitioner was totally unaware of not making an assessment till he filed his writ petition before this court and, therefore, the demands made by the petitioner through the chartered accountant or through him should not be held against him. We are of the view that in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution, which only confers a power on this court and does not confer a right on litigant, this....