Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short "the Tribunal"), dated February 27, 2003, allowing the appeal of the assessee directing the Revenue to give the credit for the tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2, 19,015. The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 on March 30, 1992, in which credit for the aforesaid amount had duly been claimed. The certificates in respect of the tax deducted had not been attached with the return as the same had not been received from the person responsible deducting the tax deducted at source. This return was neither processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), nor was any notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued for framing the assessment. 2. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated May 26, 1993, requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the same assessment year. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its return declaring the same income of Rs. 3,74,360 and attached 42 certificates of tax deducted at source along with it. The Assessing Officer processed the second return but did not issue the refund on the ground that the refund had not been claimed in the prescribed form, i.e., Form No. 30. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act and submitted that, as per the departmental circular, the Assessing Officer was to allow the refund even where the assessee had not claimed the refund which was allowable on the basis of the documents/information filed along with the return. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee vide order under Section 154 dated October 5, 1994, on the ground that the refund claim could be lodged by the assessee within two years from the end of the assessment year, i.e., up to March 31, 1992. According to him, since the assessee had neither enclosed the TDS certificates along with the return filed on March 30, 1992, nor had lodged the claim for refund in the proper form, no credit for tax deducted at source could be allowed. According to him, since the assessee had neither enclosed the TDS certificates along with the return filed on March 30, 1992, nor had lodged the claim for refund in the proper form, no credit for tax deducted at source could be allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A)") who upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed vide the impugned order. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no ground for interference in the findings recorded by the Tribunal has been made out. It is the admitted case that the return claiming the refund on account of tax deducted at source for the assessment year 1989-90 had been filed within the period of limitation, i.e., on March 30, 1992. The Assessing Officer neither processed this return nor passed any assessment order thereon. The only explanation that has been given before us is that due to heavy work, the Assessing Officer could not take any action on the same. We cannot approve of this conduct on the part of the Assessing Officer. The assessee cannot be made to suffer on account of negligence or inaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. Once it is admitted that the return claiming benefit of tax deducted at source had been filed on March 30, 1992, within the period of limitation, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to take action on the same. 4. The other objection of the Revenue that the claim of refund was not in the prescribed form, i.e., Form No. 30, is an attempt to frustrate a valid claim of the assessee on a hyper-technical ground. 4. The other objection of the Revenue that the claim of refund was not in the prescribed form, i.e., Form No. 30, is an attempt to frustrate a valid claim of the assessee on a hyper-technical ground. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect as under : "As regards the denial of the claim by the Assessing Officer for the refund to the assessee on the basis that the claim was not made in the prescribed pro forma, we may refer to the decision of the honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deep Chand Jain v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 676 (P&H) wherein the following relevant observations were made (page 686) : As to the contention that the application was not on a prescribed form, it may be observed that the given form is prescribed to facilitate an inquiry, if one becomes necessary, to see whether the assessee was entitled to a refund. The existence of a prescribed form, to which an application for refund has to conform, cannot be used to bar the claim of the assessee to a refund of the tax on the super-technical ground that his application for refund was not on a given prescribed form. By prescribing a given form, the framers of the rules intended to facilitate the refund and not to bar or hinder the right of an assessee for getting his money back. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of the honble jurisdictional High Court it would be clear that the assessee was entitled to refund even if the claim was not lodged on a prescribed form. In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form No. 30. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 197 ITR 563. The honble High Court made the following observations with regard to the provisions dealing with the refund. The honble High Court observed at page 566 as under : (3) This view is further entrenched by the well-known rule of interpretation of laws or taxing statutes which are interpreted in favour of the assessee, and that the State shall not tax more than it has given itself an express power for. The honble High Court observed at page 566 as under : (3) This view is further entrenched by the well-known rule of interpretation of laws or taxing statutes which are interpreted in favour of the assessee, and that the State shall not tax more than it has given itself an express power for. If the taxing provisions are to be interpreted against the taxing authorities, the refund giving provisions must as a logical corollary be interpreted liberally also in favour of the assessee." 5. We are in total agreement with the above findings. 6. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.