Kashmir Singh Bhangal vs Income Tax Officer and Another

Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has received a refund voucher from the Department on account as principal and interest u/s 244(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. He claims that some interest u/s 220(2) of the Act was also paid which has not been refunded. He has, however, not been able to give particulars of such payment. In case, he has some evidence in this behalf, he may make representation to the Department enclosing therewith evidence of such payment and the Department shall then consider his claim for refund on merits and in case he is found entitled to any refund, issue the same within one month.

Before parting we record our anguish at the way the Department is functioning. It is unfortunate that an assessee, who is entitled to refund has to approach the High Court. His grievance has not been redressed even by the so-called Grievance Cell which has been created by the Departmental authorities to help the assessees.

While disposing of this writ petition in the above terms, we are of the view that the assessee-petitioner deserves to be compensated at least qua the costs. The same are assessed at Rs. 2,500 and shall be borne personally by the official who is found to be responsible for causing the delay. The CIT, Jalandhar-II, shall conduct the necessary inquiry in this behalf and fix the responsibility. He shall complete the exercise within one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the CIT, Jalandhar-II, for necessary compliance.