Ram Chander Aggarwal vs Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes

The petitioner is residing at Delhi. He deposited the amount of tax at Delhi. The matter relates to the year 1974-75 which ultimately reached the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of by order dated 26-10-1981, passed in IT Appeal Nos. 788, 787 (Chd.) of 1979 and 1188 (Delhi) of 1979. As stated by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, the petitioner was a partner in a firm, other partners whereof were being assessed at Bombay. Subsequent to the passing of the appellate order of the Tribunal, the assessment record of the petitioner was also transferred to Bombay. It is not disputed that on giving effect to the order of the Tribunal certain amount of tax is due as refund and payable to the petitioner. The petitioner sought for refund but the same has not been allowed till this day to him. Vide letter dated 12-02-1997 (Annexure-VI), the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, informed the petitioner that the jurisdiction over the petitioner''s case had already been transferred to the Commissioner, Bombay and, therefore, matter as to refund could not be dealt with at Delhi. The petitioner was also informed that from the available record there appeared to be some outstanding arrears of tax against the assessee and before the refund could be issued some adjustment of outstanding demand had to be made.

The petitioner''s letter seeking refund was forwarded along with record to the Commissioner for necessary action advising the petitioner to contact him. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the tax together with interest.

The only plea raised by the learned senior standing counsel for the department is that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Assessing Officer of the petitioner at Mumbai with whom now lies the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner as also to give effect to the appellate order of the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the averments made in para ( p ) of the petition, wherein the petitioner has stated on oath that the petitioner approached the Asstt. Commissioner, Circle 7(4), Mumbai, for grant of refund but he was informed that all the records requisite for dealing with the claim for refund were not available with him and in the absence of relevant record, the petitioner could not succeed in getting the refund. There is substance in the submission of the petitioner that if any amount is due and payable to him, that must be refunded and he should not be shuttle cocked between Bombay and Delhi. In view of the categorical statement made by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent that the petitioner''s claim as to refund is now to be dealt with and disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner, the petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the abovesaid authority and to seek the refund from him. On the petitioner approaching the said authority, the petitioner''s claim for refund shall be dealt with and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of the petitioner approaching the abovesaid authority. It shall be for the said authority to secure all the requisite records necessary for disposing of the petitioner''s claim for refund. We also direct respondent No. 2 to transmit the records referred to in para ( p ) of the petition, i.e., the certified copies of the requisite documents from the IT Reference No. 8 of 1982 to the Asstt. Commissioner enabling him to dispose of the petitioner''s claim as to refund without any further loss of time.

The refund shall carry the interest as admissible under the provisions of the Act. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.