Petitioner denied to seek refund of excess advance tax on the grounds of it being a stale claim: The High Court of Delhi

It is settled law that representations made by the Petitioner would not extend the period of limitation. The aforesaid law has also been relied upon by the Delhi High Court in the case of Harbux Singh Sidhu v. Department Of Income Tax [W.P.(C) 6683/2021] which was decided upon by the two judge bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla on 19th July 2021.

The facts of the case are as follows. Present writ petition had been filed seeking refund of the excess advance tax deposited by the Petitioner amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/, along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of original challan up to the date of realization of such amount. Petitioner also sought a direction to the Respondents to adjudicate the claim of Petitioner in an expedited manner and pay an amount of Rs 5 Lakhs towards the cost of the present proceedings and mental harassment to the Petitioner.

 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards advance-tax for the Assessment Year 2000-01. He states that the Petitioner had misplaced the original challan for the same and informed the Department, so that he could be issued the refund in future, whenever the necessary document was provided. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner found the original challan dated 31st January, 2001 showing the payment of Advance Tax amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/-, made by the Petitioner and filed an application dated 14th July, 2003 with the Income Tax Office requesting for rectification of the account and apprising them of the fact that the Petitioner had finally traced the original challan.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “Petitioner in the year 2021 cannot seek refund of the excess advance tax deposited for the Assessment Year 2000-01, as it is a stale claim. It is settled law that representations made by the Petitioner would not extend the period of limitation. In any event, the Bank vide letter dated 13th May, 2016 had informed the Respondent that it has no record with regard to the excess payment made by the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2000-01. No proceeding had been filed by the petitioner within three years from the said date. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.”

click here for judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat