Patna High Court
Rajendra Prasad Sah vs The Union Of India on 24 February, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2355 of 2020
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Shah @ Rajendra Prasad Son of Late Hari Charan Prasad
Sah C/o Shubhendra Mani Tripathi (Sunil Sharma) B-8, Sector- 9, New Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (201 009).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Central Board of Director Tax, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.
4. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Bihar Region, Government of India,
Department of Revenue, Patna.
5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Government of India, Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4821 of 2020
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Sah, Son of Late Hari Charan Prasad Sah, C/o Shubhendra
Mani Tripathi (Sunil Sharma) B-8, Sector-9, New Vijay Nagar, Gaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh (201 009).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2. The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.
3. The Director Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New
Delhi.
4. The Income Tax Department through the Commissioner, Income Tax,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Range-Muzaffarpur.
6. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Motihari.
7. The Tax Recovery Officer, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
((In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2355 of 2020)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Amish Kumar, CGC
For Income Tax Deptt. : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4821 of 2020)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Amish Kumar, CGC
For Income Tax Deptt. : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
2/24
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date - 24-02-2025
Reg:- C.W.J.C. No. 2355 of 2020
Grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to
refund of Rs. 73,78,220/- in addition to a sum of Rs. 38,30,345/-
which has been paid in the form of refund. In paragraph nos. 3
and 4 of the counter affidavit to I.A. No. 01 of 2023, official
respondents have stated as under:-
"3. That the brief facts of the case is this
that the petitioner (Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah) has
been filing/making his grievances in the form of
RTI, CPGRAMs etc from time to time, which have
been reported/replied and attended to on the basis
of available documents and information available.
Each time, the claimant is seen to have come up
with new set of grievances and thereby
complicating the issues further. Inevitable
difficulties have been faced in the instant case due
to the fact that the case has become very old and
also due to non-availability of many of original
records and even available ones are not readily
legible. This case has also passed through family
litigation among the coparceners of the erstwhile
Haricharan Prasad Sah(HUF) for the proportional
claim over the refund arising out of appeals orders
etc.
The refund claim made by the petitioner
is very old, repetitive and each time new claims
have been surfaced. As directed, in order to submit
the statement of facts and comments, the same is
being submitted on the basis of analyzing and co-
relating the documents available in this office.
There were two major issues to be
examined and considered in the matter-
i) to ascertain the correct amount of
refund amount together with the interest
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
3/24
component payable, if any, after adjustment of all
the due taxes.
ii) in case the refund becomes payable,
then to be paid to whom and, if, excess refund is
made or some demands are still due, then to be
recovered from whom?
Initially, the petitioner had claimed only
his share (one of the co-parceners of the HUF) of
refund amount. Afterwards, the petitioner claimed
to be the sole heir to the full amount of refund
belonging to the said HUF. As per available
record, out of total refund amounting to Rs.
38,40,499/- paid by the department to the HUF
from time to time, Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah(the
petitioner) alone has been paid Rs. 37,79,575/-.
Further, on the direction of Honorable High Court,
Patna, one of the co-parceners, Sri Vishwanath
Prasad Sah filed a suit No- 517/1995 for allocation
of share among the co- parceners and the matter
was subjudice before the Sub-Judge IX, Patna.
From the available record, it has been found that
the Sub-Judge IX, Patna has dismissed this petition
on the grounds that the petitioner did not pursue
the matter and respond to the Court's notices from
time to time and did not appear before the
honourable court. Any other co-parcener has filed
any petition before any court in respect of refund
amount's share has not come to the light of this
office. Therefore, it appears to be settled that Sri
Rajendra Prasad Sah is entitled to get/pay any
amount becoming refundable/payable based on
calculation of demands outstanding, demands
realised, refunds made subsequent to appellate
orders and any amount refundable/payable as a
result.
The records available in this office has
been perused and analysed. Original old
assessment records containing the demand notice
etc. are readily not available in the office. The ITI
and Sr. Tax Assistant have been directed to search
those files along with office copy of demand notice
and copy of challan(s) towards payment of taxes
after realization of money in auction of properties
of the estate belonging to Haricharan Prasad
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
4/24
Sah(HUF). The records available are in a
miscellaneous folder. A consolidated list of demand
and details of payment of taxes are not found in
any of the records presently maintained and, hence,
not traceable readily. Some of the records are
soiled, defaced and not legible. It is seen from the
records that in quest to settle this matter for once
and all, Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah, the petitioner,
had been time and again requested by then
assessing officers to assist by making himself
available in person or through his authorised
representatives and co-ordinate in reconstructing
the records in the exercise of ascertaining the
correct amount of refund, if any, payable together
with the interest component. But, as it appears, in
response to replies each time and the request made
for co-operation, the petitioner has come up with
some other issues instead of making himself
available or through his authorised representatives
and place the documents/records etc. before the
Income tax authorities for reconciliation and
resolution of the matter. The perpetuity of
grievance raised by the petitioner through RTI,
CPGRAMS, legal notice through his counsel etc.
coupled with change of incumbents in department
and a long history of case involving income-tax
and wealth tax assessment orders from the AY
1970-71 to AY 1981-82, amount of demand raised
for respective assessment years, amount of
penalties imposed for the respective assessment
years, realisation of demands through attachment
of immovable and movable properties by the
department in different years, appeal by the
assessee, relief allowed to the assessee by
CIT(A)/ITAT/HC during different periods of time
and insufficiency of documents either on the part of
the department or the assessee/petitioner owing to
its being an old case comes in the way of
determining the correct amount of refund in spite
of best efforts being put in with genuine intentions
by the officers/officials on various occasions.
Therefore, the assessee HUF/petitioner co-
operation with the department for early and
satisfactory settlement of the issue is highly
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
5/24
solicited. From the perusal of available
documents/applications from the record, the
petitioner is found to have single handedly
claiming and pursuing this matter throughout. This
admission on the part of the petitioner goes on to
buttress the point that the petitioner must have
been in possession of all the relevant documents
with him right from the Income tax and wealth tax
assessment orders, attachment orders and amount
of realisation date wise, appeal orders and
subsequent refunds made from the office of the Tax
Recovery officer, Muzaffarpur/ITO, Ward- Motihari
which are very necessary to arrive at the exact
amount of refund still pending, if any. The
petitioner himself or his authorised representative
may co-operate with the department in reconciling
the demand/recovery/refund matter for summary
disposal of the claim of the petitioner.
4. That in reply of paragraph no 1, 3 of
the IA petition it is stated that on perusal of the
records available with this office in respect of the
petitioner, it is seen that in the writ petition bearing
number 2355 of 2020, the assessee has claimed a
loss of Rs. 73,78,220/- up to 3rd July, 2023 payable
in terms of order dated 28.08.1989, passed by ITAT
Kolkata. In annexure-13, the petitioner has
provided an interest calculation on cash deposit
(as per TRO's record) and has claimed total
interest of Rs. 42,27,413/-which is inclusive of
interest amount of Rs. 27,97,554/-up to
30/09/1991
@ 1.5% P.M. and interest amount of Rs.
14,29,859/-from 01/10/1991 to 31/12/1995 @ 1%
P.M. The petitioner has calculated interest on
realised amount of Rs. 28,03,639/-
From this chart, it is seen that the
petitioner has calculated interest as under:
TABLE-1
Total interest up to 31.12.1995 42,27,413/-
Add: Interest from 01/01/1996 to 31/03/2021
(a) Interest from 01/01/1996 to 31/05/2001@1% pm 18,22,365/-
(b) Interest from 01/06/2001 to 31/05/2002@ 0.75% pm 2,52,328/
(c) Interest from 01/06/2002 to 07/09/2003@ 0.67% pm 2,81,766/-
(d) Interest from 08/09/2003 to 31/03/2021@ 0.50% pm 29,57,839/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
(e)Interest from 01/04/2021 to 31/07/[email protected]%pm 3,92,509/-
Total receivables 99,34,220/-
Less: Already received 25,56,000/-
Balance receivable of interest 73,78,220/-
From the analysis of records vis-a vis the claim of
the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 28,03,639/- (cash
deposit as per TRO's record) does not
commensurate with the cash Book summary
available with this office record. As per office of
the Tax Recovery Officer's office letter No. 137
Dated, Muzaffarpur, the 04-12-1992 communicated
with Shri Rajendra Pd Sah, S/o- Late Haricharan
Pd. Sah( Motihari), sector-20, House No.113,
Indra Nagar, Lucknow, the actual figure of deposit
in the case of M/s Haricharan Pd. Sah & Others
(H.U.F.) has been mentioned at Rs. 27,98,381/-only
as collected from auction sale of properties in the
case of the above mentioned assessee H.U.F.
From the above, it can be concluded that the
petitioner has shown an amount of Rs. 28,03,639/-
which differs from the amount of Rs. 27,98,381/-
mentioned in the letter of the then Tax recovery
Officer by Rs. 5,258/-. The source of this amount
and the consequent reason for this difference is
best known to the petitioner himself. Further, the
office of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patna
vide office letter dated 26-11-1991 addressed to the
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarpur
Range, Muzaffarpur had requested "to send a
comprehensive report indicating what are the
outstanding demands pending against the assessee-
HUF. You may also verify the payment of Rs.
20,05,187/-as claimed by the applicant." This letter
clearly indicates that the petitioner at that time(26-
11-1991) had accepted that payments amounting to
Rs. 20,05,187/ only had been made/recoveries
made. This fact is also corroborated from the
contents of the ITO, Ward-1(3), motihari vide letter
dated 12-12-1991 in which he has mentioned "the
assessee claims that total collections through
auctions and other methods were made at Rs.
20,05,187/-by the T.R.O, Muzaffarpur whereas as
stated above the T.R.O, Muzaffarpur has intimated
me that total collections of Rs. 16,85,817/-has been
made by him." This establishes the fact that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
assessee/petitioner had been claiming Rs.
20,05,187/- only to have been collected by the
department through auction sale of properties and
other methods. It is only after the TRO,
Muzaffarpur letter No.137 dated 04-12-1992
mentioning therein that Rs. 27,98,381/- has been
collected from auction sale of properties, the
assessee started claiming Rs. 27,98,381/- as
payments made to the department. Furthermore,
the relevant portion of the issued letter (dated 01-
03-2016) by the then Income Tax Officer, Ward-
1(3), Motihari to Sri Rajendra Pd. Sah, S/o- Late
Haricharan Pd. Sah, C/o-Sri Mahendra Singh, B-
5/379, sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 is
reproduced as under-
"As directed by the Joint Commissioner of income
of Te, Range-1. Muzaffarpur on 24.02.2016. The
case records of M/s Haricharan Pd. Sah & Others,
Motihari, available at the office of the TRO,
Muzaffarpur were inspected by Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
TRO, Muzaffarpur, Sri R.D. singh, ITO, Bettiah, Sri
Satish Chandra Thakur, ITO(Tech), O/o the Pr.CIT,
Muzaffarpur and myself i,e, ITO, Ward- 1(3),
Motihari on 29.02.2016 and it was found that
auction sale of the properties of M/s Haricharan
Pd. Sah & Others, Motihari were conducted on the
following dates:
(i) Auction conducted on 18.04.1985 Rs.11,86,100 was recovered
(ii)Auctionconductedon28.02.1986,1.3.198 Rs.4,99,670/-was recovered
Total Rs.16,85,770/-was recovered
Moreover, heavy refund has already been issued to
you. No refund is due to you as per our case
records. However, if any amount is refundable to
you, as per your records, you are requested to
inspect the relevant records in the O/o the TRO,
Muzaffarpur, either personally or through your
authorised representative to ascertain the amount
payable by you/refundable in the light of the
documentary evidences to avoid any future
litigation in this case."
From the analysis of the above data, it is
seen that there appears to be discrepancies in the
amounts of recoveries made through auction sale
and other methods. Accordingly, this office vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
letter No. 1047 dated 27/02/2024 addressed to the
Tax Recovery Officer, O/o the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax-1, Patna, requesting him to make
available office records in the case of Sri
Haricharan Prasad Sah(HUF) for A.Y. 1970-71 to
1981-82 for submission of Para-wise comments.
Vide his office letter No. 408 dated 04/03/2024, the
Tax Recovery officer replied that "no such case
exists in the register of Recovery Certificates of Tax
Recovery Officer O/o the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax-1, Patna." Therefore, this issue of
discrepancies in reported recoveries could not be
verified.
As it emerges from the letter addressed by
the then ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari addressed to the
Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarpur vide
letter No.201 dated 25/05/2016 wherein it has been
mentioned that from the perusal of available
records it appears that consequent to the judgment
of Hon'ble Court, following refunds were issued in
the case as per detail mentioned below:
TABLE-2
Sl. Beneficiary Reference No. Refund Amount (in
No. (Paid to) rupees)
1 All Co- RV No. A-178630 to 35 60,924/-
parceners of
HUF(10,15
4 x 6)
2 Rajendra RV No. A-178636, Dated- 19/01/1993 1,85,427/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
3 Rajendra RV No. A-178637, Dated- 24/02/1993 1,66,526/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
4 Rajendra RV No. A-178638, Dated- 08/06/1993 3,07,230/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
5 Rajendra RV No. A-178640, Dated- 08/06/1995 31,20,392/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
Total Refund issued till date 38,40,499/-
Out of total refund paid by the department,
Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah alone has received refund
amounting to Rs. 37,79,575/-. As per available
records, the last refund amounting to Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
31,20,392/- has been made to Sri Rajendra Prasad
Sah vide R.V. No. A-178640 dated 08.06.1995
which has been also confirmed by Sri Rajendra
Prasad sah also in his earlier submissions.
On the basis of findings from then incumbent
Income-tax Officers, three set of amounts of
recoveries from auction of sales have emerged
which are being mentioned as under:-
TABLE-3
(i) Vide ITO, Ward-1(3) letter dated 01/06/2016
(On the basis of records available at the office of
TRO, Muzaffarpur inspected by Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
TRO, Muzaffarpur, Sri R. D. Singh, ITO, Bettiah,
Sri Satish Chandra Thakur, ITO(Tech), O/o, the Pr.
CIT, Muzaffarpur and Sri A.K.Ansari, ITO, Ward-
1(3), Motihari.
Auction conducted on 18/04/1985 ----- Rs. 11,86,100/-
Auction conducted on 28/02/1986 & 01/03/1986 ----- Rs. 4,99,670/-
Total: Rs. 16,85, 770/-
(ia) Reported vide letter No. 163 dated 05.10.1990 -----Rs. 16,85,817/-
(ii) As per claim made by the petitioner himself: Rs. 20,05,187/-
(As revealed from the letter dated 12/12/1991
of then ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari]
(iii) Vide TRO's Misc. Letter No. 137 dated Rs. 27,98,381/-
04/12/1992 (As revealed from the then ITO, Ward,
1(3), Motihari letter to the DCIT, Range, Muzaffarpur
dated 07.12.1992
On comparison of (i), (ia), (ii) and (iii)
above, it is clear that actual amount of recoveries
made through auction sales of properties differ and
the actual amount payable/refundable to the
petitioner is not ascertainable. Vide letter dated
07.12.1992 and working sheet of refund, the then
ITO, Ward-1(3) has determined Rs. 11,12,564/- as
amount refundable to the assessee HUF/petitioner
taking into account Rs. 27,98, 381/- as total
recoveries made and reported by the Tax Recovery
officer, Muzaffarpur. The last refund amounting to
Rs. 31,20,392 has been made to the petitioner vide
R.V. No. A-178640 dated 08.06. 1995. The total
refunds amounting to Rs. 38,30,345/-has been
made to the Coparceners of the HUF out of which
Rs. 37,79,575/- has been refunded to the petitioner
himself. Refunds to the petitioner has been made as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
per Table-1 above. The dates on the R.V. Nos.
Pertain to the year 1995. Keeping these facts and
complexities in mind, this office letter dated
27/02/2024 addressed to the Tax Recovery Officer,
O/o the PCIT-1, Patna was sent requesting him to
provide complete details/documents pertaining to
Haricharan Prasad Sah (HUF) to substantiate the
claim of the petition. In response a reply dated
04/03/2024 was received mentioning therein that
no records are available at the end of the office of
TRO, O/o PCIT-1, Patna (erstwhile TRO,
Muzaffarpur).
Under the circumstances, an effort has been
made towards computation of amount refundable
to the petitioner (though not exhaustive) on the
basis of existing records at the end of this office. It
requires reconciliation with the petitioner along
with relevant documents in support of his claim, if
any.
Calculation of total amount payable/refundable to Shri
Rajendra Prasad Sah in the case of Haricharan Prasad
Sah(HUF)
While going through the above refund
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
computation (Table-1), the assessee-
HUF/petitioner claim for more refund is not found
to be correct. It appears that the petitioner has
calculated interest without making adjustments of
refunds having been paid to the assessee from time
to time.
However, the reconciliation exercise is
important so that with assistance of the concerned
persons especially the petitioner himself or his
authorised representative to reconstruct the
records for examining the entire matter as several
refunds have already been granted in this case.
There is also ambiguity so far as the amounts
recovered by the department are concerned which
emanate from Table-1, 2 &3 above.
In view of the above facts of the case, it
would not be prudent to issue further any refund to
the petitioner Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah without
any proper calculation that may become more than
his actual entitlement. Moreover, the petitioner has
not provided the details of his permanent Account
Number linked with Aadhar which is required for
issue of refund, if any, which may arise in due
course of time after reconciliation of relevant
documents/records together with the petitioner or
his authorized representative."
2. Official respondents have not demanded what are
the requisite documents for the purpose of examining the
petitioner's claim of Rs. 73,78,220/-. They have not made
known to the petitioner.
3. Be that as it may, the concerned officer-respondent
is hereby directed to issue a letter to the petitioner demanding
which are the requisite and necessary documents for the purpose
of examining the petitioner's claim of Rs. 73,78,220/- within a
period of 4 weeks from today. On receipt of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
communication by the official respondents, petitioner is hereby
directed to furnish such of those demanded documents to the
official respondent, if he has those documents. In the event of
not possessing certain documents he must assign reasons as to
why he is not in a position to furnish such of those documents
which are not available with him. While furnishing whatever the
documents available and explanation in respect of non-
availability of documents, petitioner is hereby directed to
furnish the aforementioned requirement within a period of 8
weeks from today. On receipt of petitioner's explanation/ reply
the concerned official respondent is hereby directed to pass a
detailed speaking order in respect of petitioner's claim of Rs.
73,78,220/- and communicate the same within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of petitioner's explanation.
4. With the above observation, writ petition stands
disposed of.
5. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
6. If the petitioner is not convince with the final order
to be passed on his grievance, he is at liberty to invoke
appropriate remedy and in accordance with law.
Reg:- C.W.J.C. No. 4821 of 2020
7. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
refund of Rs. 81,44,496/- in addition to a sum of Rs. 37,79,575/-
which has been paid in the form of refund. In paragraph nos. 3,
4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit to I.A. No. 01 of 2023, official
respondents have stated as under:-
"3. That the brief facts of the case is this
that the petitioner (Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah) has
been filing/making his grievances in the form of
RTI, CPGRAMs etc from time to time, which have
been reported/replied and attended to on the basis
of available documents and information available.
Each time, the claimant is seen to have come up
with new set of grievances and thereby
complicating the issues further. Inevitable
difficulties have been faced in the instant case due
to the fact that the case has become very old and
also due to non-availability of many of original
records and even available ones are not readily
legible. This case has also passed through family
litigation among the coparceners of the erstwhile
Haricharan Prasad Sah(HUF) for the proportional
claim over the refund arising out of appeals orders
etc.
The refund claim made by the petitioner
is very old, repetitive and each time new claims
have been surfaced. As directed, in order to submit
the statement of facts and comments, the same is
being submitted on the basis of analyzing and co-
relating the documents available in this office.
There were two major issues to be
examined and considered in the matter-
i) to ascertain the correct amount of
refund amount together with the interest
component payable, if any, after adjustment of all
the due taxes.
ii) in case the refund becomes payable,
then to be paid to whom and, if, excess refund is
made or some demands are still due, then to be
recovered from whom?
Initially, the petitioner had claimed only
his share (one of the co-parceners of the HUF) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
refund amount. Afterwards, the petitioner claimed
to be the sole heir to the full amount of refund
belonging to the said HUF. As per available
record, out of total refund amounting to Rs.
38,40,499/- paid by the department to the HUF
from time to time, Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah(the
petitioner) alone has been paid Rs. 37,79,575/-.
Further, on the direction of Honorable High Court,
Patna, one of the co-parceners, Sri Vishwanath
Prasad Sah filed a suit No- 517/1995 for allocation
of share among the co- parceners and the matter
was subjudice before the Sub-Judge IX, Patna.
From the available record, it has been found that
the Sub-Judge IX, Patna has dismissed this petition
on the grounds that the petitioner did not pursue
the matter and respond to the Court's notices from
time to time and did not appear before the
honourable court. Any other co-parcener has filed
any petition before any court in respect of refund
amount's share has not come to the light of this
office. Therefore, it appears to be settled that Sri
Rajendra Prasad Sah is entitled to get/pay any
amount becoming refundable/payable based on
calculation of demands outstanding, demands
realised, refunds made subsequent to appellate
orders and any amount refundable/payable as a
result.
The records available in this office has
been perused and analysed. Original old
assessment records containing the demand notice
etc. are readily not available in the office. The ITI
and Sr. Tax Assistant have been directed to search
those files along with office copy of demand notice
and copy of challan(s) towards payment of taxes
after realization of money in auction of properties
of the estate belonging to Haricharan Prasad
Sah(HUF). The records available are in a
miscellaneous folder. A consolidated list of demand
and details of payment of taxes are not found in
any of the records presently maintained and, hence,
not traceable readily. Some of the records are
soiled, defaced and not legible. It is seen from the
records that in quest to settle this matter for once
and all, Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah, the petitioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
had been time and again requested by then
assessing officers to assist by making himself
available in person or through his authorised
representatives and co-ordinate in reconstructing
the records in the exercise of ascertaining the
correct amount of refund, if any, payable together
with the interest component. But, as it appears, in
response to replies each time and the request made
for co-operation, the petitioner has come up with
some other issues instead of making himself
available or through his authorised representatives
and place the documents/records etc. before the
Income tax authorities for reconciliation and
resolution of the matter. The perpetuity of
grievance raised by the petitioner through RTI,
CPGRAMS, legal notice through his counsel etc.
coupled with change of incumbents in department
and a long history of case involving income-tax
and wealth tax assessment orders from the AY
1970-71 to AY 1981-82, amount of demand raised
for respective assessment years, amount of
penalties imposed for the respective assessment
years, realisation of demands through attachment
of immovable and movable properties by the
department in different years, appeal by the
assessee, relief allowed to the assessee by
CIT(A)/ITAT/HC during different periods of time
and insufficiency of documents either on the part of
the department or the assessee/petitioner owing to
its being an old case comes in the way of
determining the correct amount of refund in spite
of best efforts being put in with genuine intentions
by the officers/officials on various occasions.
Therefore, the assessee HUF/petitioner co-
operation with the department for early and
satisfactory settlement of the issue is highly
solicited. From the perusal of available
documents/applications from the record, the
petitioner is found to have single handedly
claiming and pursuing this matter throughout. This
admission on the part of the petitioner goes on to
buttress the point that the petitioner must have
been in possession of all the relevant documents
with him right from the Income tax and wealth tax
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
assessment orders, attachment orders and amount
of realisation date wise, appeal orders and
subsequent refunds made from the office of the Tax
Recovery officer, Muzaffarpur/ITO, Ward- Motihari
which are very necessary to arrive at the exact
amount of refund still pending, if any. The
petitioner himself or his authorised representative
may co-operate with the department in reconciling
the demand/recovery/refund matter for summary
disposal of the claim of the petitioner
4. That in reply of paragraph no 1 of the
IA it is stated that the petitioner has claimed a loss
of Rs. 81,44,496/- as detailed in annexure-12 to the
present application. This annexure comprises
details of (a) Treasury Saving Certificate (b) Bihar
State Development Loan (c) National Plan Loan.
In this regard, it is to submit that as per the
available record, there is no evidence/information
whatsoever regarding these instruments and also
whether they have attached and realize or not.
Further, a detail of refunds already made to the
petitioner is on record which the petitioner has
also accepted. Even assuming the contention of the
petitioner to be true and correct, the petitioner has
not provided any evidence that these instruments, if
any, are not part of refunds already made to him.
The petitioner has attached no documentary
evidence in this regard. Hence, the issue is
unverifiable at this end.
5. That in reply of paragraph no 2,3. of
the IA it is stated that it requires no comments.
6. That On perusal of the records
available with this office in respect of the
petitioner, it is seen that in the writ petition bearing
number 2355 of 2020, the assessee has claimed a
loss of Rs. 73,78,220/- up to 3rd July, 2023 payable
in terms of order dated 28.08.1989, passed by ITAT
Kolkata. In annexure-13, the petitioner has
provided an interest calculation on cash deposit
(as per TRO's record) and has claimed total
interest of Rs. 42,27,413/- which is inclusive of
interest amount of Rs. 27,97,554/- up to
30/09/1991@ 1.5% P.M. and interest amount of Rs.
14,29,859/-from 01/10/1991 to 31/12/1995 @ 1%
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
P.M. The petitioner has calculated interest on
realised amount of Rs. 28,03,639/- From this chart,
it is seen that the petitioner has calculated interest
as under:
TABLE-1
Total interest up to 31.12.1995 42,27,413/-
Add: Interest from 01/01/1996 to 31/03/2021
(a) Interest from 01/01/1996 to 31/05/2001@1% pm 18,22,365/-
(b) Interest from 01/06/2001 to 31/05/2002@ 0.75% pm 2,52,328/
(c) Interest from 01/06/2002 to 07/09/2003@ 0.67% pm 2,81,766/-
(d) Interest from 08/09/2003 to 31/03/2021@ 0.50% pm 29,57,839/-
(e)Interest from 01/04/2021 to 31/07/[email protected]%pm 3,92,509/-
Total receivables 99,34,220/-
Less: Already received 25,56,000/-
Balance receivable of interest 73,78,220/-
From the analysis of records vis-a vis the claim of
the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 28,03,639/- (cash
deposit as per TRO's record) does not
commensurate with the cash Book summary
available with this office record. As per office of
the Tax Recovery Officer's office letter No. 137
Dated, Muzaffarpur, the 04-12-1992 communicated
with Shri Rajendra Pd Sah, S/o- Late Haricharan
Pd. Sah( Motihari), sector-20, House No.113,
Indra Nagar, Lucknow, the actual figure of deposit
in the case of M/s Haricharan Pd. Sah & Others
(H.U.F.) has been mentioned at Rs. 27,98,381/-only
as collected from auction sale of properties in the
case of the above mentioned assessee H.U.F.
From the above, it can be concluded that the
petitioner has shown an amount of Rs. 28,03,639/-
which differs from the amount of Rs. 27,98,381/-
mentioned in the letter of the then Tax recovery
Officer by Rs. 5,258/-. The source of this amount
and the consequent reason for this difference is
best known to the petitioner himself. Further, the
office of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patna
vide office letter dated 26-11-1991 addressed to the
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarpur
Range, Muzaffarpur had requested "to send a
comprehensive report indicating what are the
outstanding demands pending against the assessee-
HUF. You may also verify the payment of Rs.
20,05,187/-as claimed by the applicant." This letter
clearly indicates that the petitioner at that time(26-
11-1991) had accepted that payments amounting to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
Rs. 20,05,187/ only had been made/recoveries
made. This fact is also corroborated from the
contents of the ITO, Ward-1(3), motihari vide letter
dated 12-12-1991 in which he has mentioned "the
assessee claims that total collections through
auctions and other methods were made at Rs.
20,05,187/-by the T.R.O, Muzaffarpur whereas as
stated above the T.R.O, Muzaffarpur has intimated
me that total collections of Rs. 16,85,817/-has been
made by him." This establishes the fact that the
assessee/petitioner had been claiming Rs.
20,05,187/- only to have been collected by the
department through auction sale of properties and
other methods. It is only after the TRO,
Muzaffarpur letter No.137 dated 04-12-1992
mentioning therein that Rs. 27,98,381/- has been
collected from auction sale of properties, the
assessee started claiming Rs. 27,98,381/- as
payments made to the department. Furthermore,
the relevant portion of the issued letter (dated 01-
03-2016) by the then Income Tax Officer, Ward-
1(3), Motihari to Sri Rajendra Pd. Sah, S/o- Late
Haricharan Pd. Sah, C/o-Sri Mahendra Singh, B-
5/379, sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 is
reproduced as under-
"As directed by the Joint Commissioner of income
of Te, Range-1. Muzaffarpur on 24.02.2016. The
case records of M/s Haricharan Pd. Sah & Others,
Motihari, available at the office of the TRO,
Muzaffarpur were inspected by Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
TRO, Muzaffarpur, Sri R.D. singh, ITO, Bettiah, Sri
Satish Chandra Thakur, ITO(Tech), O/o the Pr.CIT,
Muzaffarpur and myself i,e, ITO, Ward- 1(3),
Motihari on 29.02.2016 and it was found that
auction sale of the properties of M/s Haricharan
Pd. Sah & Others, Motihari were conducted on the
following dates:
(i) Auction conducted on 18.04.1985 Rs.11,86,100 was recovered
(ii)Auctionconductedon28.02.1986,1.3.198 Rs.4,99,670/-was recovered
Total Rs.16,85,770/-was recovered
Moreover, heavy refund has already been issued to
you. No refund is due to you as per our case
records. However, if any amount is refundable to
you, as per your records, you are requested to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
inspect the relevant records in the O/o the TRO,
Muzaffarpur, either personally or through your
authorised representative to ascertain the amount
payable by you/refundable in the light of the
documentary evidences to avoid any future
litigation in this case."
From the analysis of the above data, it is
seen that there appears to be discrepancies in the
amounts of recoveries made through auction sale
and other methods. Accordingly, this office vide
letter No. 1047 dated 27/02/2024 addressed to the
Tax Recovery Officer, O/o the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax-1, Patna, requesting him to make
available office records in the case of Sri
Haricharan Prasad Sah(HUF) for A.Y. 1970-71 to
1981-82 for submission of Para-wise comments.
Vide his office letter No. 408 dated 04/03/2024, the
Tax Recovery officer replied that "no such case
exists in the register of Recovery Certificates of Tax
Recovery Officer O/o the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax-1, Patna." Therefore, this issue of
discrepancies in reported recoveries could not be
verified.
As it emerges from the letter addressed by
the then ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari addressed to the
Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzaffarpur vide
letter No.201 dated 25/05/2016 wherein it has been
mentioned that from the perusal of available
records it appears that consequent to the judgment
of Hon'ble Court, following refunds were issued in
the case as per detail mentioned below:
TABLE-2
Sl. Beneficiary Reference No. Refund Amount (in
No. (Paid to) rupees)
1 All Co- RV No. A-178630 to 35 60,924/-
parceners of
HUF(10,15
4 x 6)
2 Rajendra RV No. A-178636, Dated- 19/01/1993 1,85,427/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
3 Rajendra RV No. A-178637, Dated- 24/02/1993 1,66,526/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
4 Rajendra RV No. A-178638, Dated- 08/06/1993 3,07,230/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
5 Rajendra RV No. A-178640, Dated- 08/06/1995 31,20,392/-
Prasad Sah
(Elder son
of Late
Haricharan
Prasad Sah)
Total Refund issued till date 38,40,499/-
Out of total refund paid by the department,
Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah alone has received refund
amounting to Rs. 37,79,575/-. As per available
records, the last refund amounting to Rs.
31,20,392/- has been made to Sri Rajendra Prasad
Sah vide R.V. No. A-178640 dated 08.06.1995
which has been also confirmed by Sri Rajendra
Prasad sah also in his earlier submissions.
On the basis of findings from then incumbent
Income-tax Officers, three set of amounts of
recoveries from auction of sales have emerged
which are being mentioned as under:-
TABLE-3
(i) Vide ITO, Ward-1(3) letter dated 01/06/2016
(On the basis of records available at the office of
TRO, Muzaffarpur inspected by Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
TRO, Muzaffarpur, Sri R. D. Singh, ITO, Bettiah,
Sri Satish Chandra Thakur, ITO(Tech), O/o, the Pr.
CIT, Muzaffarpur and Sri A.K.Ansari, ITO, Ward-
1(3), Motihari.
Auction conducted on 18/04/1985 ----- Rs. 11,86,100/-
Auction conducted on 28/02/1986 & 01/03/1986 ----- Rs. 4,99,670/-
Total: Rs. 16,85, 770/-
(ia) Reported vide letter No. 163 dated 05.10.1990 -----Rs. 16,85,817/-
(ii) As per claim made by the petitioner himself: Rs. 20,05,187/-
(As revealed from the letter dated 12/12/1991
of then ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari]
(iii) Vide TRO's Misc. Letter No. 137 dated Rs. 27,98,381/-
04/12/1992 (As revealed from the then ITO, Ward,
1(3), Motihari letter to the DCIT, Range, Muzaffarpur
dated 07.12.1992
On comparison of (i), (ia), (ii) and (iii)
above, it is clear that actual amount of recoveries
made through auction sales of properties differ and
the actual amount payable/refundable to the
petitioner is not ascertainable. Vide letter dated
07.12.1992 and working sheet of refund, the then
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
ITO, Ward-1(3) has determined Rs. 11,12,564/- as
amount refundable to the assessee HUF/petitioner
taking into account Rs. 27,98, 381/- as total
recoveries made and reported by the Tax Recovery
officer, Muzaffarpur. The last refund amounting to
Rs. 31,20,392 has been made to the petitioner vide
R.V. No. A-178640 dated 08.06. 1995. The total
refunds amounting to Rs. 38,30,345/-has been
made to the Coparceners of the HUF out of which
Rs. 37,79,575/- has been refunded to the petitioner
himself. Refunds to the petitioner has been made as
per Table-1 above. The dates on the R.V. Nos.
Pertain to the year 1995. Keeping these facts and
complexities in mind, this office letter dated
27/02/2024 addressed to the Tax Recovery Officer,
O/o the PCIT-1, Patna was sent requesting him to
provide complete details/documents pertaining to
Haricharan Prasad Sah (HUF) to substantiate the
claim of the petition. In response a reply dated
04/03/2024 was received mentioning therein that
no records are available at the end of the office of
TRO, O/o PCIT-1, Patna (erstwhile TRO,
Muzaffarpur).
Under the circumstances, an effort has been
made towards computation of amount refundable
to the petitioner (though not exhaustive) on the
basis of existing records at the end of this office. It
requires reconciliation with the petitioner along
with relevant documents in support of his claim, if
any.
Calculation of total amount payable/refundable to Shri
Rajendra Prasad Sah in the case of Haricharan Prasad
Sah(HUF)
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
While going through the above refund
computation (Table-1), the assessee-
HUF/petitioner claim for more refund is not found
to be correct. It appears that the petitioner has
calculated interest without making adjustments of
refunds having been paid to the assessee from time
to time.
However, the reconciliation exercise is
important so that with assistance of the concerned
persons especially the petitioner himself or his
authorised representative to reconstruct the
records for examining the entire matter as several
refunds have already been granted in this case.
There is also ambiguity so far as the amounts
recovered by the department are concerned which
emanate from Table-1, 2 &3 above.
In view of the above facts of the case, it
would not be prudent to issue further any refund to
the petitioner Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah without
any proper calculation that may become more than
his actual entitlement. Moreover, the petitioner has
not provided the details of his permanent Account
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
Number linked with Aadhar which is required for
issue of refund, if any, which may arise in due
course of time after reconciliation of relevant
documents/records together with the petitioner or
his authorized representative
It is pertinent to mention here that in this
case of HUF, presently, refunds are issued
electronically either in the name of HUF or in the
name of Karta with PAN and a valid PAN linked
with Aadhar. It will not be possible to credit the
refund online without a valid PAN linked with
aadhar after adoption of new accounting system of
Income Tax Department."
8. Official respondents have not demanded what are
the requisite documents for the purpose of examining the
petitioner's claim of Rs. 81,44,496/-. They have not made
known to the petitioner.
9. Be that as it may, the concerned officer-respondent
is hereby directed to issue a letter to the petitioner demanding
which are the requisite and necessary documents for the purpose
of examining the petitioner's claim of Rs. 81,44,496/- within a
period of 4 weeks from today. On receipt of such
communication by the official respondents, petitioner is hereby
directed to furnish such of those demanded documents to the
official respondent, if he has those documents. In the event of
not possessing certain documents he must assign reasons as to
why he is not in a position to furnish such of those documents
which are not available with him. While furnishing whatever the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2355 of 2020 dt.24-02-2025
documents available and explanation in respect of non-
availability of documents, petitioner is hereby directed to
furnish the aforementioned requirement within a period of 8
weeks from today. On receipt of petitioner's explanation/ reply
the concerned official respondent is hereby directed to pass a
detailed speaking order in respect of petitioner's claim of Rs.
81,44,496/- and communicate the same within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of petitioner's explanation.
10. With the above observation, writ petition stands
disposed of.
11. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
12. If the petitioner is not convince with the final order
to be passed on his grievance, he is at liberty to invoke
appropriate remedy and in accordance with law.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date N/A
Transmission Date 06.03.2025
