QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Refund of excess deduction of tax
I am an employee of a public sector bank and was denied the benefit of liberalised pension scheme, 1993. My appeals to the bank and the High Court failed but I was allowed benefit by the Supreme Court along with interest till date. An amount was credited to my savings bank account by the bank without details as to the pension and interest so that I did not have the details for claiming Sec. 89 relief on arrears of pension. After the credit, an amount of about Rs. 5 lakh was recovered by debit to my account towards TDS. I asked for refund after Sec. 89 relief. I was verbally informed that it is not possible to refund the same in view of Circular No.2 dated May 21, 2009. I am now asked to file a revised return claiming relief under Sec. 89. I have the following queries:
(1) Whether I am eligible for interest for the excess recovery of IT by the bank and remitted to Government account?
(2) Is the ITO right in asking me to file a revised return and also whether his reply stating that my refund will be effected only when the electronic software system is introduced in his office and the package is received for the year and
(3) To whom should I further approach to get the above done?
The reader is entitled to refund on excess amount deducted and interest on such refund at one-half per cent a month for the period starting from April 1 following the date of recovery till the date of refund under Sec. 244A of the Act. The assessing officer apparently requires a revised return to give effect to the claim of spread-over relief under Sec. 89, the necessary particulars for the claim was probably not furnished.
Revised return would, therefore, be in order with necessary particulars for relief under Sec. 89. The bank apparently failed to deduct tax, but unilaterally recovered tax by debit to the reader’s account without his consent. Since the reader has not questioned the recovery, the remedy now lies only with the Income-tax Department.
The difficulties of the assessing officer in pursuing the credit verification of the deposit of tax in the electronic software system expressed in the circular referred to is not a matter for the taxpayer but will have to be resolved by the tax administration.
If the refund, after setting right any omission on the reader’s part, is not issued within reasonable time, he may file a complaint to the superior authorities in tax administration failing which remedy should be available from the Ombudsman. Extraordinary remedy by way of a writ has to be the last resort.
S. RAJARATNAM
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Business
