Radhamani Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court, in the case of Radhamani Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), has directed a petitioner, Radhamani, to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent, likely the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, seeking a refund of income tax paid on her deceased husband’s salary. The petitioner had also requested a 6% interest on the said amount.
The writ petition was filed by Radhamani seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the second respondent to refund the tax amount paid for various assessment years, along with 6% interest.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, a request for the refund was initially made to the first respondent on July 22, 2024. This representation was subsequently forwarded to the second respondent with directions for necessary action. However, the second respondent had not acted upon the representations, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the income tax department submitted that the petitioner could file a fresh representation with the second respondent. The counsel assured the court that the second respondent would then forward this representation to the appropriate authorities for addressing the petitioner’s grievance.
Considering the submissions from both parties and without delving into the merits of the case, the High Court issued a directive. The court instructed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the second respondent. Upon receipt of this new representation, the second respondent is mandated to forward it to the concerned authorities. The authorities are then directed to consider the petitioner’s representation within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt.
