Delay in challenging administrative decisions is not permissible under law, as it may lead to procedural complications.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout, and

a. by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction the respondent be directed to decide the application dated 28.10.2010 (Annex.8) preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 at the earliest considering petitioner’s age of 85 years; and

b. the refunds which are due and pending qua the petitioner for Assessment Year 2006-07 may kindly be ordered to be released to the petitioner;

c. any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the Case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The bone of contention in the present case is the Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006- 07, raising a demand from the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said Assessment Order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 13.10.2008, which partly allowed on 21.01.2009, giving certain directions for recalculation.

2.1. The petitioner sought refund of certain amount on the basis of such recalculation, which as per the petitioner, ought to have been made in pursuance of the order of the CIT (Appeals), however, the prayer for refund was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jodhpur, as was not effective, vide the communication dated 11.05.2010.

2.2. The petitioner again moved an application dated 28.10.2010 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) regarding the calculation mistake and sought refund of an amount of Rs.4,67,761/- in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the CIT (Appeals).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the basic order, which has been passed by the CIT (Appeals). He further submitted that as per Section 155 (14) of the Act of 1961, the Assessing Officer is bound to make amendments in the return of income submitted by the petitioner when the application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is submitted as per law. He also submitted that it is clear from a bare perusal of the provision that it implies that if an application is made with respect to the modified calculation in light of the order of the CIT (Appeals), then the same has to be allowed and return has to be amended.

3.1. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the relevant excerpt of Section 155 (14) of the Act of 1961, which reads as under:

“Where in the assessment for any previous year or in any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143 for any previous year, credit for tax deducted or collected in accordance with the provisions of section 199 or, as the case may be, section 206C has not been given on the ground that the certificate furnished under section 203 or section 206C was not filed with the return and subsequently such certificate is produced before the Assessing Officer within two years from the end of the assessment year in which such income is assessable, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment or any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto.”

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that on bare reading of the provision, the income tax return of the petitioner was to be amended as per law, and once such application was submitted under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, it was the duty of the respondents to have made due determination and to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 has already been submitte