This petition is directed against the communication dated 14 November 2014 sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1) Aligarh to the Secretary of the petitioner Society informing him that since the society had not furnished its return of income for the respective assessment years in which the tax at source was wrongly deducted and deposited in the government account, the claim of the society for refund of the amount could be considered only when the return of income was filed within the time prescribed.
It transpires from the record of the writ petition that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Tax No. 667 of 2006 as it felt aggrieved by the deduction of the income tax at source. This petition was disposed of on 8 May 2013 by a Division Bench of the Court with a direction to the petitioner to appear before Income Tax Commissioner (TDS), Aligarh within three weeks so that the said authority could examine as to whether the the contract between the petitioner and postal department was a simple contract for a 'contract for sale of goods' or for "carrying out works" within the meaning of Section 194 (C) of Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was further directed that the deduction of the TDS from the bills of the petitioner would abide by the decision to be taken by the concerned authority. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Aligarh found that the contract between the petitioner and the postal department was a 'contract for sale of goods' outside the purview of the provisions 194 (C) of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for refund of the tax deducted at source pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4 February 2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the Income Tax Officer has found as a fact that the contract was for sale of goods, no TDS could have been deducted under Section 194 (C) of the Act and the application filed by the petitioner for refund of TDS already deducted should have been allowed instead of the asking the petitioner to file a return of income for that purpose.
Sri Krishna Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as TDS already deducted could be refunded only when a return of income was filed and that the petitioner can file an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act.
The petitioner does have a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for the Court to examine the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1) Aligarh. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.