PCIT Vs Subash Menon (Karnataka High Court)
Conclusion: Assessee’s application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent refund claim, were rightly rejected due to the delay exceeding the prescribed limitation period under Instruction No. 13/2006 and no interest could be claimed on the delayed refund.
Held: Assessee-individual had filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09, claiming TDS credit from salary. The return was processed under Section 143(1). Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued an order, whereby it did not approve the salary of assessee and revised the same to Rs.1,26,19,034/-. The differential salary of Rs.62,69,480/- was paid by assessee to his employer, who issued revised TDS certificate. It appeared that a letter was sent by assessee wherein he had stated he was not able to file revised return due to limitation for filing revised return. Assessee was also in receipt of refund of Rs.22,76,138/-. On 19.02.2015, assessee sought modification of intimation issued under Section 143(1). In response to the said request, order under Section 154 came to be passed rejecting the request of assessee. Assessee filed revised return of income to claim refund of excess tax on 25.07.2016 and also filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). The refund application was rejected because the revised return was filed beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed by Instruction No. 13/2006. The six-year period started on April 1, 2009, and expired on March 31, 2015. On appeal. It was held that application for refund was rightly rejected, as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim was made. The court also held that assessee could not be given the benefit of their own wrong, even if the refund claim was genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the directions for grant of applicable interest could not be given.
