ITR Refund of AY 2016-17 Pending: Madras HC Orders Authorities to Consider Fresh Representation filed by Taxpayer within 6 weeks [Read Order]
Without examining the merits and considering the limited relief sought by the petitioner, the court directed the petitioner to submit a new representation to the second respondent, who must then forward it to the proper authority
![ITR Refund of AY 2016-17 Pending: Madras HC Orders Authorities to Consider Fresh Representation filed by Taxpayer within 6 weeks [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/11/2042243-itr-itr-refund-income-tax-return-taxscan.webp "ITR Refund of AY 2016-17 Pending: Madras HC Orders Authorities to Consider Fresh Representation filed by Taxpayer within 6 weeks [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed income tax authorities to consider the taxpayer’s fresh representation regarding the delayed income tax refund within six weeks. The court issued this directive without examining the merits of the case, focusing solely on ensuring timely administrative action by the authorities. The petitioner, M. Sundarapandian, had...
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed income tax authorities to consider the taxpayer’s fresh representation regarding the delayed income tax refund within six weeks. The court issued this directive without examining the merits of the case, focusing solely on ensuring timely administrative action by the authorities.
The petitioner, M. Sundarapandian, had sought the refund of ₹74,483, which was paid as tax in April 2016. Despite submitting a request in July 2024, no action was taken by the assessing officer, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The petitioner argued that despite submitting a representation to The Income tax Officer (HQ) (PR), Office of the Principal Chief, Commissioner of Income Tax, on 22 July 2024, and despite that representation being forwarded to the concerned Income tax officer, Ward 1 (second respondent), no further action was taken. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking redress.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
During the hearing, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner could submit a fresh representation before the second respondent, and assured the Court that it would be duly forwarded to the competent authority for consideration.
Without examining the merits and considering the limited relief sought by the petitioner, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed that the petitioner must submit a new representation to the second respondent, who must then forward it to the proper authority. Within six weeks of receiving the representation, the authorities were ordered to review and decide on it.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
