Refund claims for TDS must be associated with the proper PAN under which the tax was deducted; the correct procedure must be followed for claims involving incorrect PANs.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a partnership firm and is an assessee of income tax under the rolls of the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner highlighted in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 order, by which, the request for refund of the amount deducted as TDS from the compensation received from the National Highway Authority of India, for acquiring the property of the petitioner was rejected.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

2.1. In the assessment year 2008-09, for the purpose of widening National Highway 47, an extent of 0.1240 Hectors (12.4 ares) of land comprised in Sy.No s . 837/32A, 837/24, and 837/30A was acquired by the National Highway Authority, the 5th respondent herein. Being the owner of the said property, the petitioner was awarded with the compensation by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (SLAO and Competent Authority), NHDP, Thrissur, the 4th respondent herein, and the amount awarded was Rs.84,12,548/-. While making the payment of the said award, an amount of Rs.10,74,931/- was deducted by the 4th respondent, and the remaining amount was released to the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the TDS certificate issued to the petitioner confirming the payment.

2.2 Initially, as there occurred some delay in getting the TDS Certificate, the petitioner submitted returns for the relevant assessment year, but later, a revised return, as evidenced by Ext.P3, was also submitted, claiming the TDS amount. However, no refund of the said amount was made. Ext. P4, P5, P6, and P8 communications were issued seeking the said amount. The said applications were ultimately rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9 order, on the reason that the application submitted by the petitioner is barred by limitation as per Section 154 (7) of the Income Tax Act . Therefore, the application for the issue of the refund for the assessment year 2008-09 cannot be considered.

3. It was in these circumstances that this writ petition was submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

a Call for the records of the case leading to the issuance of Ext.P9 by the 1st respondent and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order;

b Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to refund a sum of Rs.9,19,178/- to the petitioner with interest with reference to the AY-2008-2009 within a short time being fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

c Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case;

4. The 4th respondent filed a statement in response to the averments contained in this writ petition. According to the 4^th respondent, the amount of Rs.10,74,931/- deducted as TDS, was remitted in the Pan card No. AJCPS6548Q submitted by the petitioner in the office of the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that, the PAN number referred to in the writ petition, was not the one submitted by the petitioner in the office of the 4th respondent, at the time of disbursement of the amount awarded as compensation for land acquisition. A statement was also submitted by the Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, wherein there is no reference about the remittance of the TDS amount as claimed by the petitioner.

5. I have heard Smt. S. Parvathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Cyriac Tom, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3., Sri. Arun Ajaysankar, learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent. Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran, learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can claim the TDS amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed