Delhi High Court rejects two-decade-old tax reclaim appeal

Delhi High Court rejects two-decade-old tax reclaim appeal

The Court held the application seeking a refund of excess advance tax deposited for Assessment Year 2000-01 while terming it as a stale claim

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by observing that the Assessee could not seek a refund of the excess advance tax deposited for the Assessment Year 2000-01 in the current year of 2021 as it was a stale claim.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla dealt with the matter titled Harbux Singh Sidhu v Department Of Income Tax.

This petition had been filed by the Petitioner – Assessee to seek a refund of the excess advance tax deposited by him amounting to ₹6,50,000 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. It was the case of the Petitioner that he had misplaced the original challan for that amount and informed the same to the Respondent – Department of Income Tax so that he could be issued the refund in future. The Petitioner submitted that he found the challan later and filed an application on 14 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 along with the bank certificate.

On the other hand, the Respondent – Department of Income Tax, requested the bank officials to verify the transaction of the Petitioner for the advance tax for the Assessment Year 2000-01 but the bank officials informed the Respondent that the record for the year 2001 had already been destroyed as per their bank policy.

The Court, after considering the above facts, opined that the Petitioner in the year 2021 could not seek a refund of the excess advance tax deposited for the Assessment Year 2000-01, as it was a stale claim. It observed that the representations made by the Petitioner would not extend the period of limitation since no proceeding was filed by the Petitioner within three years from the date of the bank letter informing that no record was available about the excess payment made by the Petitioner.

The Court, therefore, dismissed this petition on the ground of delay and laches.