^r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTIS.GARH AT BILASMJR WRIT PETITION W-y^yL^2QQ1 PETITIONER :^. ^^e^ ^&<- ^. .*"*' ^^ •^o'RESPONDENTS ^•^^^- ^•'" Smt;^ jairmala Rai L/R Late (Shri) B.N. Rai Aged about^^ years R/0 Baldeo Bagh^ Rajnandgaon. V ERS U S .) Unlon of India ^ Through Secretary Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi• (2.) Central Board of Direct Taxe^, New Delhi• (3) Commissloner of Income-Tax New Central Revenue Building Civil Lines^ Raipur(C»G») (4) Income-Tax Officer Ward-^^ Rajnandgaon(C »Ge) ^.^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OP TE^E CONSTITUTION OFn INDIA FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF I4ANDAI-4US CERTIORARY: :ETC , ..!.. ^ 3^T'^ f^TW^TT^T s-h^i^^rit^ T ~?^r ^|<l||^t<L|^ ^Til^^Ko, f®|C>11<Hy 3T^r xra^ ^..^ (r^'.l^-3-V^^)^ /--^ 200 ^W^\{ 9b^|cb [cl-b^ ^T^?T'^cTI^R ^rftn SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan $hrivastava, J. 31-03-2011 \|ear Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel fc(i Heard. Learned counsel for the petitio|- belated return for the assessment Acknowledgement No. 8457 beforje Rajnandgaon claiming refund of Rs.3,j an application dated 13-11-2000 und^r Tax Act, 1961 before the Commission^r of directions to the Income Tax Officert of the assessment year 1996-1997, in| 16-05-2001 (Annexure P-5). Another representation was m^ No.3. hlowever, the claim of the petiti| by the respondent No.3. Learned courj petitioner had approached this Court r| the different assessment year and Gt>>l^f<yt4ly1 'RTR^ff'? l^^t <P»1-^1< ^'3rf^P:T3:?T^T r the petitioner. ler submitted that the petitioner filed 1996-1997 on 04-12-2000 vide Income Tax Officer, Ward 397/- and also moved simultaneously^ Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income pr of Income Tax, Raipur for issuance to admit the belated claim in respect the light of Circular No.8/2001 dated |de on 11-03-2002 to the respondent pner ha$ not so far been considered |sel for the petitioner submits that the ^ising similar grievances in respect of |n one of such case, Writ Petition No.2773 of 2002, this Court finally disjtosed off the petition vide order dated 28-02-2005 with a direction to decide tfie petitioner's application for refund. Taking into consideration the s| for the petitioner and the order, which case, and further taking into conside| been issued in the matter, 1 deem it| matterwith direction as follows:- ubmission made by learned counsel nas been earlier passed in the similar ration that till date, no notices have expedient to finally dispose off the [^^fe4 ^.^:^msf:^ .-^''''^. ^'v^^. '^ ^ ^^£^ 'l g I CI-HC-22 W^T^I f^iW^TT^f 5^^ich ^f^a ^ Tumane T ^ ^^T ^iqi^q, ^Tli<rl^(o, [^^l-Hy sni^r 'q^i^ V^f.P, f^^^-3-L/^^l- -^ 200 ^II^OII ^NIcb i^^sr' 3'TT^T ^<TT^R Trft?T _^ Q _ (A) The respondent No.3 sh^ll petitioner's application datej (b) of the Income Tax Act, take appropnate decision on \1 13-11-2000 under Section 119(2) with regard to claim for refund. 1 $61 (B) As the case of the petition^r decision has been taken on the respondent No.3 shall a period of three months order. frortn With the aforesaid direction, the| <^i<Li(<n<4lTi 'RP^ ^ i^S iF^i^K ^T 'srf^TH ^iT^T is that during the last 9 years, no |[he application filed by the petitioner, d^cide the claim ofthe petitioner within the date of receipt of a copy of this petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ ^fei