2025 (11) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....corded as 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), until the date of payment. 2. The petitioner is a practising Chartered Accountant. According to the petitioner, he maintains his books of accounts on a cash basis and accordingly, filed his Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2018-19 in Form ITR-3 on 14th August, 2018. The declared net income of the petitioner was Rs. 37,09,520/- on which the payable tax was Rs. 9,53,117/-. As would appear from the records, TDS to the tune of Rs. 39,51,350/- was deducted, making the petitioner eligible to a refund of Rs. 29,98,230/-. Subsequently, the petitioner received an intimation under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 on 7th January, 2020 tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., since the petitioner did not succeed in getting refund, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition which was registered as WPA No. 6316 of 2025. The said writ petition was, however, subsequently withdrawn on the assurance of the respondent that the issue would be resolved. The petitioner received the refund of Rs. 14,99,725/- on 5th May 2025 and accordingly, having regard to the assurance given by the respondent, the writ petition was withdrawn. However, since nothing fructified, the petitioner had written a letter on 13th May, 2025 not only calling for an explanation from the respondent but also seeking for the details of the figures which could have authorised the respondent to withhold the amount by invoking the power under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... he has also submitted that simply because the writ petition proceeds on similar issue, the same would not attract the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit have to be the same as that of the first suit. In the instant case, since the respondent has also made part payment, and resiled from the assurance, the cause of action for the subsequent writ petition is different from the first writ petition. On such ground, he would submit that the judgment delivered in the case of Sarguja Transport (supra) is distinguishable. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. I find that admittedly in this ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I find that though the respondent has raised the point of maintainability on the ground that the petitioner has abandoned his previous claim by placing reliance on the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such statement of the respondent does not appear to be correct in the light of the sequence of events narrated hereinabove. Admittedly, the respondent had refunded a sum of Rs. 14,99,725/- to the petitioner on 5th May 2025. Following the above, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. However, since no further step was taken by the respondent, the petitioner had written the letter dated 13th May 2025 and ultimately the present writ petition has been filed. It is equally true that the cause of action for ....