ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krutarth Desai for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent. 2. This case is a classic case of ill-advice to a layperson. 3. The facts giving rise to this petition can be summarized as under: 3.1 The petitioner Kusumben Kishorkumar Rana filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under advice of advocate showing salary income of her late husband-Kishorkumar Kalyanbhai Rana, who expired on 12.10.2014. 3.2 Late husband of the petitioner was working with respondent No.3-Oil and Natural Gas Company Limited. As per Form No.16 issued by the respondent No.3 for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, total salary income of the late husband of the petitioner was Rs. 38,73,055.31 out of which, TDS of Rs. 9,90,334/- was deducted. 3.3 Instead of filing the return of income in the name of late husband of the petitioner in capacity as legal representative under section 159 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 [for short ‘the Act’], the petitioner filed return of income in her name showing total income of Rs. 30,63,639/- [income from salary of Rs. 30,41,286/- and income from other source of Rs. 22,353/-] and claimed TDS of Rs. 9,90,334/- to get the refund of Rs. 2,22,800/-. However, the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 19.01.2017 did not give the credit of TDS of Rs. 9,90,334/- as the TDS was not deducted in the PAN of the petitioner and demand of Rs. 11,80,800/- was raised. 3.4 The petitioner thereafter preferred an application under section 154 of the Act on 31.01.2024 to rectify the mistake committed by the petitioner. However, the said application was rejected by order dated 20.02.2024 on the ground that no TDS was deducted in the name of the petitioner and therefore, no rectification is required to be made to the order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the following prayers: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure A) and rectification order (Annexure F) and direct the present respondent to process the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 by providing credit of TDS as to the tune of Rs. 9,90,334/-. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure A) and rectification order (Annexure F) and direct the present respondent to process the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 by providing credit of TDS as to the tune of Rs. 9,90,334/-. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner is lawfully entitled for credit of TDS to the tune of Rs. 9,90,334/- and necessary adjustment may please be ordered to be made in re-processing of return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 by granting credit of TDS to the tune of Rs. 9,90,334/-. (D) Your Lordships may be please to alternatively to permit the petitioner to make fresh application under the provisions of section 154 with detailed representation and on such representation being made, the authorities may please be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any such other and further relief in the interest of justice.” 5. Learned advocate Mr. Krutarth Desai for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 as per the advice received from the advocate claiming TDS of her late husband in the said return. It was submitted that as per Form No.16 issued by the respondent No.3-ONGC, the return is required to be filed by the petitioner in name of late husband of the petitioner in capacity of legal heir, however, the petitioner was not advised properly and such mistake is committed by filing the return in her name showing the salary income in her return of income. 5.1 It was further submitted that the petitioner has only earned the interest income of Rs. 22,000/- for the period from April 2013 to March 2014 and the petitioner was not liable to file any return of income having income below the taxable limit. 5.2 It was therefore, prayed that the intimation given by the respondent is required to be quashed and set aside and the return filed by the petitioner is required to be treated as invalid return as admittedly, the income shown by the petitioner in the return of income belonged to her late husband. 5.2 It was therefore, prayed that the intimation given by the respondent is required to be quashed and set aside and the return filed by the petitioner is required to be treated as invalid return as admittedly, the income shown by the petitioner in the return of income belonged to her late husband. 5.3 It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to file return of income in name of her late husband as legal representative on the basis of Form No.16 and the petitioner also would waive her right to claim any interest on the refund, if any, to be paid considering the Tax Deducted at Source by the respondent No.3-ONGC from the salary of her husband. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent could not controvert the fact that late husband of the petitioner was an employee of ONGC and earned salary income for the A.Y. 2014-15 out of which, there was a deduction of the tax of Rs. 9,90,334/- as per FORM No. 16 issued by the respondent No.3. 6.1 It was therefore submitted that the petitioner having shown the income in her name is liable to pay tax thereon and is rightly not granted the benefit of Tax Deducted at Source from the salary income of her husband as the same ought to have been credited in the PAN of late husband of the petitioner being reflected in FORM 26AS of late husband of the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice, the following directions are issued so as to see that the petitioner, who lost her husband in the Year 2014, gets justice by following the correct procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act. (i) Intimation/order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Centralized Processing Center of the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in name of the petitioner is quashed and set aside as the income from salary shown by the petitioner does not belong to the petitioner and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Income Tax Officer vs Ch. Atchaiah reported in 1996 SCC (1 ) 417A, the right person is required to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. Atchaiah reported in 1996 SCC (1 ) 417A, the right person is required to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. (ii) As the income of the petitioner is only Rs. 22,353/-, as income from other source as shown in the return of income, the petitioner is not liable to file any return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 having no taxable income. (iii) The petitioner is permitted to file return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 in name of her late husband as legal representative after registration of her name as a legal representative in the PAN of her late husband as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Income Tax Rules as well as notifications issued by the CBDT from time-to-time for registration of the legal heir on the E-portal. (iv) The respondent-Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the registration of the name of the petitioner as a legal representative of late Kishorkumar Kalyanbhai Rana on the E-portal. The respondent-Assessing Officer/Central Processing Center of the Income Tax Department is directed to process the return of income to be filed by the petitioner showing the salary income earned by late husband of petitioner for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 as reflected in Form No. 16 issued by the respondent No.3-ONGC together with any further income which is offered to tax and give the credit of the TDS of Rs. 9,90,334/- as reflected in the FORM No. 16 issued by respondent No.3 in accordance with law and compute the refund, if any payable. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the refund, if any, to be paid by the respondent as the petitioner did not file return of income in time in the name of her late husband under section 244A of the Act. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Krutarth Desai for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file a return of income in name of her husband as legal representative offering the income from salary earned by late husband of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to claim TDS deducted from such salary as per Form No. 16 issued by the respondent No.3-ONGC within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. 9. The respondent-Centralized Processing Center is directed to process such return expeditiously without raising any defect on account of limitation and the limitation to file return is ordered to be waived in the facts of the case. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. 11. We are compelled to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as after exploring all the possibilities provided under the provisions of the INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 i.e. to direct the petitioner to file revision application under section 264 of the Act or to approach the CBDT- respondent No.4 under section 119 of the Act, as none of such remedy would be helpful to the petitioner to resolve the issue raised in this petition as the petitioner was ill-advised to file return of income in her name showing the salary income of her late husband as income from salary in her hand which was absolutely incorrect in the facts of the case as stated here-in-above. 12. It is a trite law to consider that amount of TDS of Rs. 9,90,334/-, deducted from salary of late husband would be, if not adjusted or paid against the tax liability, if any, arising in the hands of late husband of the petitioner, would amount to unjust enrichment in the hands of the Revenue.