ORDER Aravind Kumar, J.—Petitioner is seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dt. 24th July, 2002 passed by second respondent--Annex. F. order dt. 30th March. 2004, Annex. G and order dt. 8th Jan., 2013--Annex. H. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Malhara Rao, learned advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned advocate and junior standing counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Petitioner contends that pursuant to the search conducted under s. 132 of IT Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), notice was issued to the petitioner on 15th Dec., 1997 under s. 158BC of the Act calling upon the petitioner to file returns for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99 and same came to be filed on 29th June, 1999 declaring the undisclosed income at Rs. 10 lakhs for the block period and after tax liability at Rs. 6 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 2,82,000 was paid by way of tax as self-assessment under s. 140A of the Act and remaining amount of Rs. 3,18,000 which had been paid under the Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'VDIS') was adjusted at the request of the assessee. 3. The return of income filed by petitioner-assessee came to be accepted and an assessment order came to be passed on 2nd Sept., 1999--Annex. A determining total undisclosed taxable income for the block period at Rs. 15,36,960 and tax thereon at Rs. 9,22,176. Being aggrieved by this order, appeal came to be filed by the assessee before CIT(A) and said appeal came to be allowed vide order dt. 8th May, 2002 holding that notice issued under s. 158BC(a)(ii) of the Act is invalid on account of sufficient time prescribed under the Act having not been given to the assessee to file return of income and consequently, block assessment order was annulled. Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue filed an appeal in ITA Nos. 149 and 150/Bang/2002 before the Tribunal and Revenue's appeal came to be dismissed by order dt. 6th May, 2005. Revenue pursued the matter by filing an appeal under s. 260A of the Act before this Court in IT Appeal No. 3053 of 2005 which also came to be dismissed by answering the substantial question of law formulated therein in favour of the assessee vide order dt. 14th Sept., 2011--Annex. E. 4. 6th May, 2005. Revenue pursued the matter by filing an appeal under s. 260A of the Act before this Court in IT Appeal No. 3053 of 2005 which also came to be dismissed by answering the substantial question of law formulated therein in favour of the assessee vide order dt. 14th Sept., 2011--Annex. E. 4. In the meanwhile, assessee filed an application on account of introduction of VDIS being brought, contending that he is entitled to the benefit envisaged under said scheme, which was turned down by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed a writ petition before this Court and he was unsuccessful and undaunted by such dismissal a Writ Appeal No. 6502 of 1997 which also came to be dismissed on 8th June, 1999 [reported as G.C. Surana Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2001) 247 ITR 333 KAR .] and it was observed by Division Bench that if the assessee has not been given the benefit of the Scheme under s. 64(2)(ii) of the Act, the amounts paid thereof may be adjusted against the tax liability of the assessee. Proceedings giving effect to the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 6502 of 1997 came to be initiated and a demand for Rs. 6,43,352 was raised on the assessee vide order dt. 16th Jan., 2002--Annex. B holding thereunder that assessee would not be entitled to refund. 5. After the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on 8th May, 2002, an application was filed by the assessee before the Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1), Bangalore for refund of the tax paid. Dy. CIT, after adjudicating the said claim, vide order dt. 24th July, 2002--Annex. F ordered for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,91,236 which had been adjusted in excess of what has been declared by the assessee in the return of income. It is thereafter petition under s. 264 of the Act in No. LRP/5/2002-03/II was filed before CIT, Bangalore-II, Bangalore on 25th Sept., 2002 seeking for refund of the tax paid under the return of income which came to be adjudicated and prayer of the assessee came to be rejected vide order dt. 30th March, 2004--Annex. G. This order was not pursued by the assessee and was virtually accepted by the assessee. 30th March, 2004--Annex. G. This order was not pursued by the assessee and was virtually accepted by the assessee. Thereafter, on the Revenue's appeal being dismissed before this Court in IT Appeal No. 3053 of 2005 on 14th Sept., 2011 assessee sought to revive the cause of action by submitting one more representation on 15th Nov., 2012. This representation came to be considered and assessee was intimated about the earlier order passed on 30th March, 2004--Annex. G rejecting his prayer for refund of the tax vide communication dt. 8th Jan., 2013--Annex. H. It is these orders of rejection of refund of tax which have been assailed in this writ petition by the assessee. 6. The contention of Sri Malhara Rao is when assessment order having been annulled by the CIT(A), the very foundation has crumbled and as such, nothing remained and as such Revenue could not have retained the amount paid by the assessee pursuant to the block assessment made. Hence, he contends that assessee is entitled for refund. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of G.C. Surana Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2001) 247 ITR 333 KAR. 7. Per contra, Sri Thirumalesh, learned advocate appearing for respondent would contend that under s. 240(b) of the Act, the assessee would not be entitled for refund of the tax paid voluntarily under the return of income submitted by the assessee and adjustments made by the Revenue in excess of what had been declared by the assessee has been ordered to be refunded to the extent of Rs. 1,91,236 by the order dt. 24th July, 2012 and as such, question of refunding a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs paid by the assessee would not arise. He contends, it is only such tax assessed by the AO in excess of what has been declared by the assessee would become refundable and not the tax paid under return of income as declared by the assessee himself. He would submit that two judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and same are not applicable to the facts on hand. He would submit that two judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and same are not applicable to the facts on hand. He would contend that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches in as much as, order passed by the CIT, Bangalore-II, Bangalore is of the year 2004 and same is questioned after a period of 9 years. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Shelly Products and Another, AIR 2003 SC 2532 . He prays for dismissal of writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition ? Factual matrix: 9. Petitioner is an individual assessee. Search proceedings were carried out under s. 132 of the Act in the residential premises of the assessee on 10th Sept., 1997 pursuant to which notice under s. 158BC of the Act was issued on 15th Dec., 1997 calling upon the petitioner to file the returns within 15 days from the date of notice for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99. After seeking for time, assessee filed return of income on 29th June, 1999 declaring undisclosed income as Rs. 10 lakhs and in the said return, tax liability was shown as Rs. 6 lakhs by the assessee. Under the said return of income, assessee also paid a sum of Rs. 2,82,000 as self-assessment under s. 140A of the Act and remaining amount of Rs. 3,18,000 was requested to be adjusted by the assessee under the VDIS since by that time, said scheme has come into vogue and petitioner/assessee had opted to seek umbrage under the said scheme. On the basis of return of income filed, same came to be adjudicated by the AO and an assessment order came to be passed on 2nd Sept., 1999. Undisputedly, notice under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) had also been Issued to the assessee along with detailed questionnaire calling upon the assessee to explain with reference to the seized documents. Under the assessment order dt. 2nd Sept., 1999 the undisclosed income for the block period was arrived at as Rs. Undisputedly, notice under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) had also been Issued to the assessee along with detailed questionnaire calling upon the assessee to explain with reference to the seized documents. Under the assessment order dt. 2nd Sept., 1999 the undisclosed income for the block period was arrived at as Rs. 15,36,960 and tax demand therein was raised which was to the tune of Rs. 9,22,176 and consequently interest under s. 158BFA of the Act was also raised. 10. In the meanwhile, as noted herein supra, VDIS has come into force and as such, petitioner/assessee made an application under the said scheme and same was not accepted by the Revenue authorities and it was rejected on the ground that it was a search case. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petn. No. 32454 of 1997 which also came to be dismissed by order dt. 20th Nov., 1997 [reported as MICRO LABS LTD. and ORS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and Others, (1998) 144 CTR (Kar) 174 .]. Said order of dismissal of writ petition came to be affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 6506 of 1007 vide order dt. 8th June, 1999 (supra). Liberty was granted by the Division Bench to the Revenue to adjust the amount paid under the VDIS by the assessee against any tax liability of the assessee in the event of Department coming to the conclusion that assessee is not entitled for the benefit of VDIS. 11. Being aggrieved by the assessment order dt. 2nd Sept., 1999 (supra), assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) but, by order dt. 8th May, 2002 allowed the appeal by annulling the block assessment order on the ground that notice issued under s. 158BC(a)(ii) is invalid. Said order came to be affirmed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B' on 6th May, 2005. After order came to be passed by CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the assessee, an application has been filed by the assessee seeking for refund, which came to be adjudicated by Dy. CIT and taking into consideration s. 240(b) of the IT Act, it was held that assessee is entitled for adjustment made in excess of what has been declared by the assessee himself vide order dt. 24th July, 2002--Annex. F. Re: Point No. (1): 12. The order rejecting application for refund has been passed on 30th March, 2004. CIT and taking into consideration s. 240(b) of the IT Act, it was held that assessee is entitled for adjustment made in excess of what has been declared by the assessee himself vide order dt. 24th July, 2002--Annex. F. Re: Point No. (1): 12. The order rejecting application for refund has been passed on 30th March, 2004. Assessee has not challenged the same and has virtually accepted it. It is only after Revenue's appeal filed challenging the order of Tribunal and CIT(A) whereunder assessment order had been annulled, came to be dismissed on 6th May, 2005 assessee has attempted to revive dead cause of action by submitting representation and there is delay and laches which is clearly attributable to the assessee. Prayer of the assessee is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 13. Since point No. 1 formulated hereinabove is answered in favour of Revenue, I am of the considered view that in view of the contentions raised by the respective learned advocates appearing for both the parties on merits, point No. (2) formulated hereinabove is also adjudicated and answered hereinbelow. Re: Point No. (2): 14. It is contended by the assessee that under similar circumstances, Division Bench has held when assessment order has been annulled, assessee would be entitled to refund of the tax paid in the case of CIT and Anr. vs. Micro Labs Ltd. (supra). In the said case, it is held while answering issue No. 3 as to whether assessee is entitled for refund of the tax, it was held as under: The assessee has not paid the tax along with the income declared in the block return. It is only by way of adjustment of tax paid under the VDIS and the refund due to the assessee for the other assessment years, that are adjusted against the so-called demand raised. For cl. (b) of the proviso to s. 240 to apply, the taxes should have been paid by the assessee voluntarily. Therefore, the Revenue cannot contend that the refund adjusted is to be treated as tax paid, so as to deny the assessee the refund due, subsequently, due to annulment of assessment. Payment of taxes voluntarily is different from adjusting the refund without reference to the assessee. In the said case, undisputedly, assessee had not paid tax with regard to income written in the block return. Payment of taxes voluntarily is different from adjusting the refund without reference to the assessee. In the said case, undisputedly, assessee had not paid tax with regard to income written in the block return. Tax paid under the VDIS and refund due to the assessee for different assessment years was sought to be adjusted by AO after assessment order was annulled. Though Revenue contended that such adjustment is permissible under cl. (b) of s. 240 of the Act, it came to be negatived by Division Bench of this Court on the ground that admittedly taxes had not been paid by the assessee voluntarily and Department had adjusted the tax paid by assessee under VDIS, as such, payment of tax was held to be not voluntarily. 15. In the present case, undisputedly, assessee has voluntarily filed return of income pursuant to the notice issued under s. 158BC of the Act and has declared the undisclosed income for the block assessment period as Rs. 10 lakhs and tax payable therein as Rs. 6 lakhs. The assessee has also paid a sum of Rs. 2,82,000 at the time of filing of the return of income. For the balance amount of Rs. 3,18,000, assessee as noted hereinabove, had attempted to take umbrage under the VDIS which come into vogue by that time. In fact, return filed under VDIS was not accepted by the Revenue and it was rejected and as such, assessee had approached this Court in Writ Petn. No. 32454 of 1997 which petition came to be dismissed by order dt. 20th Nov., 1997 and same came to be affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 6506 of 1997 on 8th June, 1999 [reported as G.C. Surana Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2001) 247 ITR 333 KAR .] by reserving liberty to the Revenue to adjust the said amount against any tax liability of the assessee. 16. Giving effect to the order of CIT(A) and while considering the claim of the assessee for refund, the Dy. CIT was of the view and rightly so, that assessee would be entitled for refund of Rs. 1,91,236 which had been adjusted giving effect to the assessment order which was in excess of the tax declared and determined. 16. Giving effect to the order of CIT(A) and while considering the claim of the assessee for refund, the Dy. CIT was of the view and rightly so, that assessee would be entitled for refund of Rs. 1,91,236 which had been adjusted giving effect to the assessment order which was in excess of the tax declared and determined. However, in the order of refund, it has been categorically held under s. 240(b) of the Act, assessee would not be entitled for the tax declared under the return of income filed on 29th June, 1999 and assessee would be entitled only for refund of tax paid in excess of tax chargeable on the total income returned by the assessee. In other words, after determination by the AO, if the assessee had paid tax in excess of what has been declared in the return of income, it is only that excess or difference to which amount assessee would be entitled to and not the amount of tax paid under the return of income. 17. In the instant case, AO while giving effect to the assessment order had in fact adjusted a sum of Rs. 1,91,236 by construing the total taxable undisclosed income at Rs. 15,36,960 after having raised a tax demand at Rs. 9,22,176. Subsequently, after the assessment order came to be annulled by CIT(A) and while giving effect to the said order in refund proceedings, it has been held that assessee would be entitled for the excess amount of tax adjusted namely to the tune of Rs. 1,91,236 and not on the declared income and tax paid thereon which was to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. This order dt. 24th July, 2002 is in consonance with statutory provision namely, s. 240(b) of the Act and there is no error committed by the respondent. 18. In CIT vs. Shelly Products and Anr. referred to supra, it has been opined by their Lordships that when the Act enjoins upon the assessee a duty to file return of income disclosing his true income and on the basis of such return of income, if assessment is made, it would not be permissible for the assessee to contend at a later point of time that such return of income filed voluntarily by declaring income thereon and tax paid thereon has to be ignored by the AO and refund has to be made. In the event of AO adjudicating the return of income, he may not accept the income declared and may make addition thereon, based on which tax demand would be raised. In such circumstances, assessee would be entitled to the difference thereof namely, tax demanded based on income determined by the AO minus tax declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. In the instant case, it is this precise exercise which has been undertaken by the second respondent. When the assessment order came to be set aside by the CIT(A) and while giving effect to said order of CIT(A), second respondent has held that assessee is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,91,236 only which had been adjusted namely Rs. 1,77,986 vide intimation dt. 22nd March, 1998, refund WT (sic) for the asst. yr. 1998-99 and refund under s. 143(1) for asst. yr. 2000-01 in all, Rs. 1,91,236 and not the amount of tax paid on undisclosed income of Rs. 10,00,000 declared in return of income since s. 240(b) is attracted. As such, I am of the considered view that there is no error committed by the authorities in rejecting claim of the assessee. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Writ petition is hereby dismissed. (2) Order dt. 24th July, 2002 passed by second respondent--Annex. F, order dt. 30th March, 2004--Annex. G and order dt. 8th Jan., 2013--Annex. H are hereby affirmed. (3) No order as to costs.