Paresh M. Shetti Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking permission to file a revised return for AY 2008-09, setting aside the income-tax demand of ₹1,78,494 reflected on the e-portal, quashing the interest levied on the demand, declaring that no dues were payable, restraining further adjustment of refunds, and refund of ₹9,312 already adjusted. The petitioner stated that he had filed his return for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 after paying tax of ₹35,450. According to the petitioner, no intimation under Section 143(1) was received or reflected on the income-tax portal. The issue came to light only when the refund claimed for AY 2018-19 was adjusted against an alleged demand for AY 2008-09. The petitioner subsequently filed a grievance on the e-Nivaran portal and later an application under Section 119(2)(b) seeking permission to file a revised return, which was rejected. The petitioner contended that, in the absence of service of an intimation under Section 143(1), no valid demand existed and, therefore, no refund could be adjusted against such demand.
The Revenue contended that the petitioner had been negligent in approaching the authorities under Section 119(2)(b). During the hearing, the Revenue produced only a screenshot indicating that an intimation under Section 143(1) had allegedly been issued on 22.09.2009 and served on 02.10.2009. However, the actual intimation and proof of its service were not produced before the Court.
