| Case ID |
2f59f0ab-2bb2-4924-937c-a62eeaff6d1a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4822 OF 1985 |
| Decision Date |
May 12, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kamal Kishore Gupta, asserting that the Income Tax Officer's failure to assess within the stipulated period did not disadvantage the petitioner. The court highlighted that the payment of excess tax by the petitioner constituted an admission of tax liability. Furthermore, the court referenced previous case law, noting that the principles established in the case of Shelly Products had overruled earlier judgments that could have favored the petitioner. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund due to the legal interpretations surrounding advance tax payments and the lack of a timely assessment by the Income Tax Officer. |
| Summary |
This case involves a writ petition filed by Kamal Kishore Gupta against the Income Tax Officer regarding a tax refund dispute for the assessment year 1981-82. The petitioner initially paid excess tax and later sought a refund, which was contested by the Income Tax Officer citing rectification of a previous refund order. The court examined the legal framework of the Income-tax Act, particularly sections related to refunds and assessments, concluding that the failure of the department to assess did not negate the taxpayer's admission of liability. The decision reinforces the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shelly Products, emphasizing that tax payments made in excess are considered an acknowledgment of liability, thus denying the refund sought by the petitioner. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.M. Kumar, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Sanjay Bansal,
A.S. Tewatia
|
| Petitioners |
Kamal Kishore Gupta
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3370,
(2006) 280 ITR 588
|
| Other Citations |
Deep Chand Jain v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 676/[1983] 15 Taxman 522 (Punj. & Har.),
CIT v. Shelly Products[2003] 5 SCC 461/ 129 Taxman 271 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
237,
139(1),
141A,
154,
153,
210,
194C
|