JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri Satish Mandhyan, advocate, representing the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, advocate, appearing for the respondents.
2. It is pleaded that petitioner had filed an application dt. 8th July, 2001, addressed to the Dy. CIT, Circle, IT Office, Allahabad, pointing out mistake in calculation while granting refund and on that basis claiming refund of additional amount of Rs. 3,43,111 (as on 28th June, 2001), photostat copy of the said application (bearing illegible initials of some official of the office of Dy. CIT, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, dt. 9th July, 2001) is Annex. 5 to the writ petition.
3. Normally, an official receipt is issued by the office of IT Department while filing application/document. The said receipt or its photostat has not been brought on record till date. It is not stated that no such 'receipt' was obtained and, if so, why ?
4. According to the petitioner, no action was taken on the said application and finally a reminder by way of written application dt. 31st July, 2005 titled "grievance application" addressed to the Chief CIT (Grievance), IT Office, Allahabad, was filed, photocopy filed as Annex. 6 to the writ petition. Interestingly, in the said "grievance application", the only explanation on the most important aspect of the matter viz., non-action and to keep silent for namely, the laches of about 4 years since filing of the refund application, is "for shortfall we have already given application under Section 154 on 8th July, 2001 and approached many times in person through my legal consultant but till date no action has yet been taken....
5. Apparently, name of alleged 'legal consultant' nor the particular time or date of alleged 'approach' has been disclosed. There is time gap (between 9th July, 2005 to 31st July, 2005) of approximately 4 years. It is normally expected that petitioner should have disclosed name of the 'legal consultant' who had allegedly approached the authorities to show that petitioner has been vigilant and pursuing his remedy. Curiously, it is not done.
6. Normally, an application in writing as 'reminder' (with reference to the said application dt. 8th July, 2001) should have been made within a couple of months after 'July, 2001'.
7. The Asstt. CIT, Range-II, Allahabad, has rejected the 'grievance application' of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dt. 12th Jan., 2006 on the ground that 'the seal affixed on the petition does not pertain to the Range'. In other words the alleged application for refund was presented before an authority of different Range who had no concern with this case. The said authority has further noted that refund of principal amount was issued in 1999 and now interest was being claimed (as per 'grievance application') for the period ending upto 31st July, 2005 which actually meant claiming interest allowed under Section 244A of the IT Act, 1961, for which there is no provision. Said authority with reference to claim application dt. 8th July, 2001 noted that 'this application is neither entered in the relevant register of office of the Dy. CIT, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, nor the then receipt clerk of the concerned Circle has accepted its receipt'. This finding of fact is based on record.
The observation of the concerned authority that 'in the absence of genuine application for the purpose your claim for additional grant of interest under Section 244A of the IT Act, 1961, beyond the statutory time-limit cannot be considered' admit no exception.
8. Entire claim of the petitioner is based on the pleading that petitioner had filed application dt. 8th July, 2001 before Dy. CIT, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, on 9th July, 2001. It is a matter of fact. Relevant pleading on the issue is contained in paras 14 and 15 of the writ petition (both sworn on record) which read :
14. That since the Department was not proceeding in the correct procedure by calculating the interest amount on the paid-up amount, the petitioner was constrained to move an application under Section 154, dt. 8th July, 2001 which was received in the Department on 9th July, 2001 giving out the detailed application with specific reference to the period involved, rate admissible under Section 244A of the IT Act as calculated by chartered accountant having due regard rates as applicable from time to time. The true copy as well as photocopy of the application under Section 154 dt. 8th July, 2001 is annexed herewith and is being marked as Annex. 5 to this writ petition.
15. That the managing trustee of the petitioner-trust met Dy. CIT, Circle, Allahabad Range, but to no avail. Since there was no interactive or fruitful response from the side of the respondents, application under Section 154 was preferred....
9. It is curious to note that 'particulars of record' are not disclosed in swearing clause. Apart from it the statement 'managing trustee of the petitioner-trust met Dy. CIT, Circle, Allahabad Range, but to no avail could not be sworn on 'record' but on personal knowledge. Further, name of managing trustee (at the relevant time) is not disclosed. And above all said statement does not tally with the facts stated in "grievance application" wherein it is claimed that 'legal consultant' had approached after filing of application dt. 8th July, 2001.
10. The stand taken by the petitioner relying upon photostat copy of his alleged application dt. 8th July, 2001 does not inspire confidence.
11. This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, cannot undertake the exercise of inviting evidence of the concerned party and record 'finding of fact' essential for adjudicating the case.
12. The impugned order, sought to be challenged in the petition does not suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of record.
13. Petition is dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.