Antony Dominic, J. Appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.33095/2010. He has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed mainly challenging Ext.P6, whereby his request for adjustment as prayed for in Ext.P5 was declined.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Essentially what the appellant wants is an adjustment of certain amounts which are allegedly due to him from the department towards his liability of tax for the assessment year 2002-03. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, despite the notices issued under Sections 148 and 142 of the Income Tax Act, since there was no response from the appellant, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act as per Ext.P1 order. It was thereafter that the assessee has filed the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, a copy of
W.A.No.1460/14
: 2 :
which is Ext.P5 where he sought adjustment of certain amounts which are claimed to be due. It was this request that was rejected by the department by Ext.P6.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, as per instruction No.13/2006 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, outer time limit of 6 years is provided for making any claims under the said section. Admittedly, Ext.P5 claim was made beyond the said time limit. Even as on date, the assessee has not filed any return concerning the assessment year 2002-03 and in the absence of any return, we cannot maintain a claim for adjustment or refund.
5. In sum and substance, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned single Judge.
Writ appeal is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE