SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(P&H) 1504

HEMANT GUPTA, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
Niranjan Dass – Appellant
Versus
Central Board Of Direct Taxes Etc. – Respondent


Judgment

J.S.Khehar, J.

1. The petitioner sought a refund of the tax paid by him. The request of the petitioner was declined by the Director, CBDT by an order dt. 6th June, 2003. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the claim made by the petitioner being belated, did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 239 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such could not be entertained. Section 239(2) of the Act, which is relevant for the present controversy, is being extracted hereunder :

"Section 239. Form of claim for refund and limitation--(2) No such claim shall be allowed, unless it is made within the period specified hereunder, namely : (a) where the claim is in respect of income which is assessable for any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1967, four years from the last day of such assessment year;

(b) where the claim is in respect of income which is assessable for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1968, three years from the last day of the assessment year;

(c) where the claim is in respect of income which is assessable for any other assessment year, one year from the last day of such assess




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top