( 1 ) RULE. Mrs. M. M. Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the respondent waives service of rule. When the notice was issued on 23rd August 2004, the Court had issued the notice for final disposal. Hence, in the light of the peculiar facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, an individual, challenges, by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad VII, Ahmedabad under (the Act) on 29th March 2004.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was working as Assistant Manager with Industrial Financial Corporation of India Limited (the employer ). On an offer being made by the employer, the petitioner opted under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and received a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000=00. Admittedly, when the payment of the said amount was made by the employer, the employer did not inform the petitioner regarding the exemption from tax that the petitioner would be entitled and accordingly, in absence of the necessary clarification or the certificate from the employer, the petitioner furnished the return of income on 31st July 2001 for Assessment Year 2001 - 2002. It is the say of the petitioner that, subsequently, the petitioner became aware that he was entitled to certain portion of the income so received as being exempt under Section 10 (10c) of the Act, but the employer had deducted tax at source on the entire amount by treating the same as salary and accordingly, the tax deduction certificate in Form No. 16 had been furnished by the employer, which was annexed by the petitioner to the return of income filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had declared a total income of Rs. 9,98,182=00 on the basis of tax deduction certificate issued by the employer in Form No. 16 and claimed a refund of Rs. 12,219=00.

( 4 ) THERE appears to be some dispute between the petitioner and the respondent as to whether the aforesaid return of income was or was not processed under the provisions of Section 143 (1) of the Act. It is the stand of the respondent, as averred in the affidavit-in-reply, that the return of income was processed on 28th March 2002 and refund order had been issued which was encashed by the petitioner - assessee through his bank account.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner had not received any intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act regarding the refund claim of the petitioner and as such, because a period of twelve months had elapsed from the date of the filing of the return, he consulted a Tax Practitioner for the possible course of action. It is the say of the petitioner that it was at this point of time that the petitioner was advised that he had committed a mistake in not claiming the exemption available under Section 10 (10c) of the Act from the V. R. S. compensation received by him. Accordingly, on advice received, a revised return of income came to be filed on 24th September 2002 claiming exemption of Rs. 5,00,000=00 from the compensation under Section 10 (10c) of the Act.

( 6 ) THE assessing officer, having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner, called for various details, namely, (i) an order of the company regarding the exemption available up to an amount of Rs. 5,00,000=00 of V. R. S. , (ii) copy of original Statement of T. R. , (iii) Home Loan Certificate, (iv) Income from other sources, and (v) Table with Form 10e. On being furnished the details called for, the assessing officer framed an order under Section 154 of the Act rectifying mistake apparent on record and granting credit for prepaid taxes to the tune of Rs. 3,18,195=00. The assessing officer also directed to grant interest under Section 244a of the Act. The order was made on 27th March 2003.

( 7 ) IT appears that the order was forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax for the purpose of approval, but the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax did not approve the sa