records. At the time of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent pointed out that Smt.Nabeesa to whose credit the amount has been remitted by the first respondent has not filed any return, claiming refund of the said amount. In other words, the amount is still with the Income Tax Department. The stand now taken by the Income Tax Department that their system will not permit correction online more than once and that therefore, they are unable to do anything in this matter cannot be accepted. In so far as it is found that the amounts payable to the credit of the petitioner has not been remitted to the credit of the petitioner, but to the credit of a stranger, the Department has a duty to make appropriate corrections in the records. If there is any difficulty in effecting online corrections, it has to be corrected manually, for, restrictions, if any, imposed prohibiting correction more than once online can only be understood to have been introduced for public good. Further, Ext.R3(a) communication does not indicate that corrections cannot be carried out at all in the records. It only says that the corrections cannot be carried
