Income tax - Whether TDS benefit can be denied to deductee for fault of deductor - NO: Delhi HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when it is admitted by the CBDT that the data uploaded in the CPC database by the Department has serious errors, it is necessary for the assessees to file applications for correction of such errors; Whether AOs are required by law to suo moto carry out corrections and upload the data again so that refunds could be issued in genuine cases; Whether before making adjustement of refunds the onus is on the AO to issue an
intimation to the assessee; Whether interest can be disallowed to the assessee even though the Revenue admits that it made wrong uploading of data at CPC; Whether when AO makes adjustment in the returned income, it is necessary to issue intimation u/s 143(1); Whether the onus to show that intimation was communicated, is on the Revenue and Whether TDS benefit can be denied to the deductee for the fault of deductor. And the HC lambasts the Revenue.

Facts of the case

Delhi High Court admitted a PIL on the issue of refund problem faced by small taxapyers. Refunds were denied by the Revenue for bogus or wrong demands/arrears or incorrect record maintenance. The problem was apparent, real and enormous and had escalated because of centralised computerisation and problems associated with the incorrect and wrong data which was uploaded by the tax deductors or payers and the Assessing Officers. The issue was of general governance, failure of administration, fairness and arbitrariness. Revenue submitted to the Bench that 43% and 39% of the returns filed by the deductors in Delhi zone for the financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively were defective. This effectively meant that the assessee would not get credit of the tax deducted from their incomes by the deductors. Rejection of TDS or failure to get credit of TDS which were deducted and paid, hurt the assessee and put him to needless harassment, inconvenience and costs. The problem being systematic and institutional had to be addressed on a general scale. On the issue of refunds, the Revenue did not dispute and admitted the position that the data uploaded in the Centrally Processing Unit, Bengaluru had errors and faults. In the counter affidavit, Revenue stated that Rs.2.33 lac crores was due and payable, as per the data uploaded by the Assessing Officers towards past arrears i.e. arrears payable on or before 31st March, 2010. However, the position was that the taxpayers were claiming and stating that arrears had been wrongly shown and the Assessing Officers had not correctly uploaded the data. Revenue also accepted that the “past arrears” as uploaded may not be correct. They had not quantified the amount. The magnitude and the number of assessees adversely affected, can be appreciated from the figure of Rs.2.33 lac crores. Further, as per the counter affidavit on the basis of this data for one assessment year alone Centrally Processing Unit, Bengaluru had made about 23 lacs adjustments and the taxpayers have been denied the refund claim i.e. the refund amount had been reduced or set off against the arrears. This effectively meant that 23 lac assessees had been denied refund or had been refused full refund on account of past arrears etc.

Having heard the parties, the Bench held that,

++ at the outset, we agree and accept that the Revenue has taken a right decision to computerise the income tax records, have Central Processing Unit for processing of returns and issue of refunds. Besides, these steps relate to policy and fall within the exclusive domain of the Revenue. These steps have to be appreciated as they ensure transparency, openness, eliminate high handedness and curtail corruption/red tapism;

++ prior to 31st March, 2010, Income Tax Returns were examined manually and the respondents did not have centralised computerised data or record of the demands outstanding against a particular assessee. Each Assessing Officer manually maintained a Demand and Collection Register (D&CR, for short). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Standing Committee on Finance and Demands for Grants (2009-10) of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) had recommended uploading of arrears of demand in the CPU. On 18th March, 2010, the committee was constituted to put in place Management Information System (MIS) for collating and retrieving of data concerning appeal, disposal and recovery etc. In order to carry out the mandate, Chief Commissioners were asked to devote one entire month for house-keeping work with special emphasis on physical verification of demands and thereafter create a manual D&CR for the financial year 2010-11. CBDT instructions dated 28th October, 2010, were issued for steps to be taken by the field formation and for verification of arrears. The aforesaid exercise had to be completed by the Assessing Officer before 30th May, 2010 and a certificate was to be issued by them that they had verified the entries furnished. Range Heads were directed to form Inspection Team of officers and staff to verify and to give a certificate that verification of demand was complete and demand had been correctly carried forwarded. This inspection team had to complete this exercise by 15th June, 2010 and compliance report by the Chief Commissioner (CCS) was to be sent to be sent to the CBDT by 30th June, 2010;

++ inspite of the said effort and direction, the CBDTaccepts and admits the position that incorrect and wrong demands have been uploaded. This is clear from the further directions which have been issued by the Board to the Assessing Officers on 30th September, 2010, 9th November, 2010 and 15th February, 2012. The aforesaid demands relate to the period on or before 31st March, 2010. In the counter affidavit, it is indicated that 46.34 lac entries of demand aggregating to Rs.2.32 lac crores have been uploaded on the CPC arrear demand portal by the Assessing Officers;

++ the Revenue's letter points out two problems. Firstly, there is problem about the verification and reconciliation of demand which had been uploaded by the Assessing Officer in the CPU. It has been pointed out that these demands were being disputed by the taxpayers. The Assessing Officers were advised to upload amended figures after correction and reconciliation. Secondly tax demand to the tune of Rs.4800 crores had been adjusted by the CPU by way of adjustment of refunds. This adjustment accordingly should be duly reflected and shown in the record maintained by the individual Assessing Officers. On a reading of the said letter, one can see and understand the concern and anguish expressed on account of uploading of incorrect and wrong data in the CPU and the problem faced by them and in turn problems faced by the assesses. The letter specifically indicates that demands recovered were not being recorded in the records maintained by the Assessing Officer and credit was not duly reflected in the record of the Assessing Officer;

++ A reading of the circular No 4 of 2012 shows that the burden is put on the assessee to approach the Assessing Officers to get their records updated and corrected. In the given situation perhaps this may be the easiest and most convenient option available, but this should not be a ground for the Assessing Officer not to suo motu correct their records and upload correct data. Each assessee has a right and can demand from the respondents that correct and true data relating to the past demands should be uploaded. CBDT should and must endeavour and direct the Assessing Officers to upload the correct data. The CBDT has already issued Management of Arrear Demand manual for the Assessing Officer. The real issue is that the Assessing Officers must comply and follow the said manual and upload the correct and true data. Filing of applications under Section 154 i.e. application for rectification and correction by the assessee would entail substantial expenses on the part of the assessee who would be required to engage a counsel or advocate or make repeated visits to the Income Tax office for the said purpose. This would defeat the main purpose behind computerisation i.e. to reduce involvement of human element;

+ as per Citizen Charter on the website of Income Tax Department, refund along with interest in case of electronically filed returns should be made within six months. In case of manually filed returns, refund should be made within nine months. The time commences from the end of month in which the return/application is received. Similarly, the Citizen Charter states that a decision on the rectification application under Section 154 will be made within a period of two months. The Board has, however, issued instructions that rectification application under Section 154 should be disposed of within 4/6 months. There is a general grievance that the Assessing Officers do not adhere to the said time limits and the assessees are invariably called upon to file duplicate applications or new applications in case they want disposal. It is stated that there are no dak or receipt counters or register for receipt of applications under Section 154. Thus there is no record/register with the Assessing Officer with details and particulars of application made under Section 154, the date on which it was made, date of disposal and its fate. Noticing this fact in the order dated 5th February, 2013, it was directed that the Revenue must examine the necessity for proper dak/receipt counters for receipt of applications under Section 154 by hand or by post. It was observed that it will be desirable that each application received should be entered in a diary/register and given a serial number with acknowledgement to the applicant indicating the diary number. It was also suggested that details of applications under Section 154 should be uploaded on the website as this would entail transparency. The website should indicate the date on which the application was received and date of disposal of the application by the Assessing Officer concerned;

++ in the affidavit filed on 5th March, 2013, the respondents have stated that they have “recently” prescribed a register for receipt of rectification applications. The said register has various columns namely, date of disposal, date of service of rectification application, demand/refund etc. This is the right step but it must be ensured by the Board that the registers are made available to all Assessing Officers or at the dak counters. The said registers will be made available to the dak counters and the Assessing officers within two months, if not already provided. The Board will also issue instructions that all Assessing Officers and dak counters shall henceforth in the said register, enter and allocate a serial number on the rectification applications and the date of receipt and the serial number will be mentioned on the acknowledgement, which is issued to the assessee. Uploading of the details of the said registers as stated in the affidavit should be made online preferably within a period of six months. This, we reiterate would be in accordance with the mandate of the Citizen Charter of the Department which states that the respondents believe in equity and transparency;

++ in the counter affidavit filed on 5th March, 2013, it is stated that Aayakar Seva Kendras provide for single window service to tax payers for receipt of Dak/grievance and paper returns and applications under Section 154 are also within the scope of Aayakar Seva Kendras. Information in this regard will be disseminated and informed to the assessees, who can take advantage and benefit of the same. It is stated that there are already 75 Aayakar Seva Kendras and 57 more such Kendras are being set up in the current year. Similarly, it is stated that Sevottam Aayakar Seva Kendras are being set up in 112 income tax offices. Each application under Section 154 has to be disposed of and decided by a speaking order. This is the mandate of the Act. The order has to be communicated to the assessee and there is a relevant column to be filled in the register, which is now required to be maintained. The Board should issue specific directions to ensure that there is full compliance of the said requirements and directions by the Assessing Officers, Dak counters and Aayakar Sewa Kendras. This is the first mandamus or direction we have issued in the present judgment;

++ the Revenue in its counter affidavit has accepted that the Board from time to time has issued directions that the said Section and the procedure prescribed should be strictly adhered to. Reference is made to instruction Nos. 1952, 1969 and 1989 dated 14th August, 1998, 20th August, 1999 and 20th October, 2010 respectively. Another instruction CPC No. 1 dated 27th November, 2012 has been issued recently. However, in the counter affidavit filed on 28th July, 2012 two conflicting or contradictory stands were taken. Section 245 mandates and envisages prior intimation to the assessee so that he/she can respond before any adjustment of refund is made towards the demand relating to any other assessment year. Thus, an opportunity of response/reply should be given and after considering the stand and plea of the assessee, justified and valid order or direction for adjustment of refund can be made. The Section postulates two stage action; prior intimation and then subsequent action when warranted and necessary for adjustments of the refund towards arrears;

++ inspite of the opportunity given to the Revenue to take steps, prescribe, adopt a just procedure, to correct the records, etc., nothing has been done and they have not taken any decision or steps. The affidavits filed subsequently after 31st August, 2012, are silent on this specific point. In these circumstances, we direct and issue the third mandamus and direction which will be applicable only to cases where returns have been processed by the CPC Bengaluru and refunds have been fully or partly adjusted against the past arrears while passing or communicating the order under Section 143(1) of the Act, without following the procedure under Section 245 of the Act. All such cases will be transferred to the Assessing Officers; the Assessing Officers will issue notice to the assessee which will be served as per the procedure prescribed under the Act; the assessees will be entitled to file response/reply to the notice seeking adjustment of refund; after considering the reply, if any, the Assessing Officers will pass an order under Section 245 of the Act permitting or allowing the refund and the Board will fix time limit and schedule for completing the said process;

++ the Revenue accepts and admits the position that wrong and incorrect demands have been uploaded in the CPC Bengaluru. Secondly, the respondents have not followed the mandate and requirement of Section 245 of the Act before making the adjustment. The two stage process with the opportunity and right of the assessee to submit a reply before the adjustment is made, has been denied. CPC Bengaluru did not entertain or accept any application of the assessee questioning past arrears uploaded in their system as they are not custodian of past records. CPU Bengaluru entertain on-line applications but do not entertain physical or hard copy applications. Assessing Officer similarly did not entertain any application by the assessee on the ground that the order under Section 143(1) was passed by the CPC Bengaluru and they do not have the files/return with them. Thus, the problem was created and caused by the Revenue who did not realise the effect and impact of incorrect and wrong arrears being uploaded in CPU Bengaluru and did not follow the statutory requirements of Section 245 of the Act.

++ we clarify that the aforesaid directions are only applicable to cases where two stage procedure under Section 245 of the Act has not been followed and not to cases where procedure under Section 245 of the Act was followed. We are aware that this process may involve some expenditure and paper work in about substantial number of cases but as noticed above, the situation has arisen is due to the lapses on the part of the Assessing Officers and failure to follow Section 245 of the Act. The procedure under Section 245 of the Act is mandatory, just and fair and the assessees cannot be made to suffer for the incorrect or wrong uploading of arrears and wrong and incorrect adjustment of refund on the part of the respondents.

++ there are two more issues connected with this question. The first issue relates to interest under Section 244A of the Act. Revenue's stand is that interest under Section 244A is not payable on self-assessment tax but is payable on advance tax and TDS. The respondents have further stated that interest is paid from 1st day of April of the assessment year till the date on which the refund is granted. We are not examining the said stand of the Revenue and leave these questions open;

++ an assessee can be certainly denied interest if delay is attributable to him in terms of sub-section (2) to Section 244A. However, when the delay is not attributable to the assessee but due to the fault of the Revenue, then interest should be paid under the said Section. False or wrong uploading of past arrears and failure to follow the mandate before adjustment is made under Section 245 of the Act, cannot be attributed and treated as a fault of the assessee. These are lapses on the part of the Assessing Officer i.e. the Revenue. Interest cannot be denied to the assessees when the twin conditions are satisfied and in favour of the assessee. However, even in such cases Assessing officer may deny interest for reasons to be recorded in writing if the assessee was in fault and responsible for the delay. This is the fourth mandamus which we have issued;

++ the second grievance of the assessee is with regard to the uncommunicated intimiations under Section 143(1) which remained on paper/file or the computer of the Assessing Officer. This is serious challenge and a matter of grave concern. The law requires intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated to the assessee, if there is an adjustment made in the return resulting either in demand or reduction in refund. The uncommunicated orders/intimations cannot be enforced and are not valid. Respondents in the counter affidavit have not dealt with this problem on the assumption that the Assessing Officer who had manually processed the returns and passed the order/intimations under Section 143(1) would have necessarily followed the statute and communicated the said orders/intimations. In case the said orders/intimations under Section 143(1) were communicated or dispatched to the assessees, the directions given by us below would not be a cause for any grievance and will not be a matter of concern for the Revenue. We also accept the contention of the Revenue that where an order under Section 143(1) was sent and communicated to the assessee but could not be served due to non-availability/change of address or other valid reasons, should not be treated at par with cases where there is no communication or no attempt is made to serve the order whatsoever. But when there is failure to dispatch or send communication/intimation to the assessee consequences must follow. Such intimation/order prior to 31st March, 2010, will be treated as non est or invalid for want of communication/service within a reasonable time. This exercise, it is desirable should be undertaken expeditiously by the Assessing Officers. CBDT will issue instructions to the Assessing Officers;

++ the onus to show that the order was communicated and was served on the assessee is on the Revenue and not upon the assessee. We may note in case an order under Section 143(1) is not communicated or served on the assessee, the return as declared/filed is treated as deemed intimation and an order under Section 143(1). Therefore, if an assessee does not receive or is not communicated an order under Section 143(1), he will never know that some adjustments on account of rejection of TDS or tax paid has been made. While deciding applications under Section 154, or passing an order under Section 245, the Assessing Officers are required to know and follow the said principle. Of course, while deciding application under Section 154 or 245 or otherwise, if the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion and records a finding that TDS or tax credit had been fraudulently claimed he will be entitled to take action as per law and deny the fraudulent claim of TDS etc. The Assessing Officer, therefore, has to make a distinction between fraudulent claims and claims which have been rejected on ground of technicalities but there is no communication to the assessee of the order/intimation under Section 143(1). In the later cases, the Assessing Officer cannot turn around and enforce the demand created by uncommunicated order/intimation under Section 143(1). This is the fifth mandamus which we have issued;

++ this brings us to the second issue regarding credit of TDS or rejection of credit even when the TDS stands paid by the deductor. The said problem can be divided into two categories; cases where the deductors fail to upload the correct and true particulars of the TDS, which has been deducted and paid as a result of which the assessee does not get credit of the tax paid, and the second set of cases where there is a mismatch between the details uploaded by the deductor and the details furnished by the assessee in the income tax return. The details of TDS credited/uploaded in the case of each assessee are now available in form 26AS;

++ the magnitude of the problem faced by the assessees on account of mismatch for the first reason can be appreciated if we notice the figures given by the Revenue in the counter affidavit filed on 28th July, 2012. It is stated that in Financial Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 as many as 43% and 39% of the TDS returns processed in Delhi zone, where the level of compliance is much higher and better than the national average, were found to be defective. A total demand of Rs. 3000 crores approximately was raised in Delhi zone on the assessees for the Financial Year 2010-11. After correction were made and the consequent corrective orders were passed, the figure came down to 1900 crores, which is still a substantial amount;

++ the Revenue has now reduced this figure of Rs.1 lac to mere Rs 5,000/-. Ex-facie, the reasoning that the reduction is to check fraudulent claims by unscrupulous assessees does not appear to be correct as in order to claim credit of TDS the following three core fields must match. These core fields are: name of the assessee, the PAN number and the assessment year. Benefit of Rs.1 lac or Rs.3 lacs or Rs.5,000/- is only when there is a discrepancy in the amount and not when there is a discrepancy in any of the three core fields, i.e. name of the assessee, the PAN number and the assessment year. This being a PIL, we are not issuing a specific direction but the Board must re-examine the said aspect and if they feel that unnecessary burden or harassment will be caused to the assessees, suitable remedial steps should be taken;

++ however, we appreciate the stand taken by the Revenue that assessee would be given credit even in cases of mismatch or other details not exceeding the specified amounts, in case the name of the assessee, PAN number and the assessment year tally with the details furnished in the return by the assessee and the data uploaded in form 26AS by the deductor.There can be mismatch because of deductor and the assessee may be following different methods of accounting. Further, the assessee may treat the income on which tax has been deducted as income for two or more different years. The respondents must take remedial steps and ensure that in such cases TDS is not rejected on the ground that the amounts do not tally. Of course, while issuing corrective steps, the respondents can ensure that fraudulent or double claims for TDS are not made. We are not issuing any specific directions as it is a technical matter but the respondents should take remedial steps in this regard;

++ another problem highlighted relates to the use of alphabets 'U', 'M' and 'P' in form 26 AS. The said alphabets stand for 'unmatched challan', 'matched challan' and 'provisional booking'. It is stated that 'provisional booking' is applicable for DDOs, i.e., Government deductors and shall be shortly discontinued. 'Unmatched challans' relate to challans where the report by the deductor in the TDS statement are not found available in the OLTAS data base (OLTAS stands for Online Tax Accounting System). The respondents will fix a time limit within which they shall verify and correct all unmatched challans. This will necessarily require communication with the deductor and steps to rectify. The time limit fixed should take into account the due date of filing of the return and processing of the return by the Assessing Officer. An assessee as a deductee should not suffer because of fault made by deductor or inability of the Revenue to ask the deductor to rectify and correct. Once payment has been received by the Revenue, credit should be given to the assessee. Board will issue such suitable directions in this regard and this is the sixth mandamus which we are issuing;

++ the said question was raised as several assessees have a grievance in spite of written letters and approaching the deductors to rectify and correct TDS details and the deductors fail and neglect to do so as the failure does not entail any adverse consequence or action against them. The deductee being taxpayer is harassed but the deductor does not suffer when the deductee does not get benefit of tax paid;

++ the response is unfortunate and unsatisfactory. The response purports to express complete helplessness on the part of the Revenue to take steps and seeks to absolve them from any responsibility. This aspect was highlighted in the order dated 31st August, 2012. In the affidavit filed on 30th November, 2012 the Revenue has stated that by Finance Act 2012, Section 234E has been inserted whereby fee of Rs.200/- per day can be levied for default of the deductor/collector for failure to file TDS/TDS statement within due date. Income Tax Rules, 1962 have been modified wherein deductors of all categories are mandated to upload TDS certificates through Tax Information Network System;

++ the recent statement of the Finance Minister reflects the true and correct position of a pique assessee as a deductee, who has suffered tax deduction at source, but is not given due credit in spite of the fact that the deductor has paid the said tax. The respondents have received their due or money but credit is not given to the person from whose income tax has been deducted. Denying benefit of TDS to a taxpayer because of the fault of the deductor, which is not attributable to the deductee, causes unwarranted harassment and inconvenience. The deductee feels cheated. The Revenue cannot be a silence spectator, wash their hands and pretend helplessness. The problems highlighted here are normally faced by small or middle class taxpayers, including senior citizens as they do not have Chartered Accountants or Advocates on their pay rolls. The marginal amount involved in several cases and inconvenience/harassment involved makes it unviable and futile exercise to first approach the deductor and then the Assessing Officer. Rectification and getting corrections made by the deductor and to get them uploaded is not an easy task. The second phase of filing a revised return or an application under Section 154 is equally daunting and “expensive”. Invariably the assessees will write letters or even visit the office of the deductors, but when there is no response or desired result, they get frustrated and suffer. This causes distrust and feeling that the assessee has not been treated justly, fairly and in an honest manner. In our earlier orders, we had emphasised this aspect and asked the Board to take appropriate steps to ameliorate and help the small taxpayers;

++ it is unfortunate that the Board did not take immediate steps after even noticing lacuna and waited till Finance Act, 2012, when Section 234E was enacted. Mere writing of a letter by the Assessing Officer to the deductor by no stretch can be treated as sufficient action on the part of the Revenue. Even this, it appears, was done in a few cases as the Revenue in the counter affidavit has stated that they have written 20119 communications to the tax deductors, where TDS credit claimed by the taxpayers did not match with the details loaded by the deductors. The Act empowers and authorises the Assessing Officer to verify the contents of the return and notices can be issued to a third party, i.e. the deductor, to furnish information and details. The deductor, the principal officer or person responsible for making deduction, once issued notice to appear, in most cases, would like to comply with the statutory requirements and also furnish details with regard to TDS deducted from the income of the assessee. The statutory powers given to the Assessing Officer are sufficient and should be resorted to and the assessee cannot be left to the mercy or the sweet will of the deductors. Therefore, we direct that when an assessee approaches the Assessing Officer with requisite details and particulars, the said Assessing Officer will verify whether or not the deductor has made payment of the TDS and if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. These details or the TDS certificate should be starting point for the Assessing Officer to ascertain and verify the true and correct position. The Assessing Officer will be at liberty to get in touch with the TDS circle in case he requires clarification or confirmation. He is also at liberty to get in touch with deductor by issuing a notice and compelling him to upload the correct particulars/details. The said exercise must be and should be undertaken by the Revenue, i.e. the Assessing Officer as an assessee who suffers in such cases is not due to his fault and can justifiably feel deceived and defrauded. We do not accept the stand of the Revenue that they can only write a letter to the deductor to persuade him to correct the uploaded entries or to upload the details. Power and authority of the Assessing Officer, cannot match and are not a substitute to the beseeching or imploring of an assessee to the deductor. The directions given above, are in accord with the provisions of the Act, namely, Section 133 and TDS provisions of the Act. If required and necessary, the income tax authorities can obtain prior approval from the Director or the Commissioner. The authorities can also examine whether general approval can be given. The said exercise is undertaken by the Assessing Officer while verifying or examining the return. Section 234E will also require similar verification by the Assessing Officer. In such cases, if required, order under Section 154 of the Act may also be passed. Circular No. 4 of 2012 will be equally applicable. This is the seventh mandamus which we have issued;

++ the problem mentioned above will generally arise in cases prior to financial year 2011-12 as the TDS certificate forms had undergone a change and is now required to be downloaded from the Income Tax Portal. In some cases, it is possible that the assessee may not be able to file his Income Tax Return because the deductor has not furnished the TDS certificate. The assessee in question will be at liberty to correspond with his Assessing Officer or the TDS circle pointing out the said factual position and appropriate action, as directed in the aforesaid paragraphs, will be taken by the Assessing Officers concerned;

++ steps for implementation and to ensure that credit is given to such assessee should be taken by the respondents in this regard and for compliance instructions should be circulated to the Assessing Officer. Thus every effort and attempt must be made to ensure that the assessee should get benefit of the TDS deducted by the deductor and paid to the Government. It would be unfortunate and a matter of regret if an assessee does not get credit, inspite of payment of tax.

++ there is a communication gap between the assessees and the Revenue. We are informed that there is an Income Tax portal where under the head 'My Account', an assessee can make comments and raise grievance. It may be advisable for the Revenue to examine grievances as well as the comments by the assessee regarding the inconvenience or harassment being faced by them. Revenue has to be responsive and must meet the genuine aspirations and desire of the assesses. If possible, response/reply to the e-mails should be made. Most of the mandamus/directions given above, are in tune with what has been stated and averred by the respondents in the counter affidavit. On some aspects, we have partly modified what has been accepted and agreed by the respondents. We appreciate and understand that there can be and may be some practical difficulties or the respondents may themselves find a proper or more appropriate solution to the same. Therefore, we permit the respondents or the petitioner All India Federation for Tax Practitioners or others, to move an application for modification/clarification of this order. However, no application by an individual assessee relating to his personal or individual grievance will be entertained. In case, there is non-compliance of the directions/ mandamus issued above, the individual assessee will be required to approach the writ court for appropriate order or direction. We hope and trust that the Revenue will be responsive and comply with the directions mentioned above.