SHRI SWATARUP BANERJEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS)-8, KOLKATA & ORS.

WPO/230/2018HC CalcuttaWBCHCO001712201830 September 2020Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Swatarup Banerjee, declared income under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016. The scheme required payment of tax, surcharge, and penalty in three instalments, with the third instalment due by September 30, 2017. The petitioner paid the first two instalments but failed to pay the third due to illness. He represented to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax on December 4, 2017, seeking an extension, but the matter remained undecided. Subsequently, a Notification S.O. 4455(E) dated December 13, 2019, was issued, extending the payment period for declarations under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016, to January 31, 2020, with applicable interest, and was given retrospective effect from June 1, 2016. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the non-payment of the third instalment and sought benefit under the new notification.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that neither the Revenue Authority nor the petitioner could act during the period prescribed by the Notification S.O. 4455(E) dated December 13, 2019, without the leave of the Court. The Court found that the petitioner's prayer for extension of time deserved to be attended to by the Revenue Authority under the said Notification, as his prayer was live and pending during the notification's subsistence, entitling him to retrospective consideration. Consequently, the issue was remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the matter on merits in light of the Court's observations. The Court directed that this exercise should be completed within six weeks from the communication of the order. The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Notification S.O. 4455(E) dated December 13, 2019, for making the payment of the third instalment under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016, given that the writ petition was pending during the subsistence of the notification and the notification has retrospective effect (Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Notification dated December 13, 2019, extending the payment period, should be applied retrospectively to his case. He contends that his representation for extension was pending when the notification was issued, and neither he nor the Revenue Authority could act on it without the Court's leave. He seeks parity of treatment under the notification. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue Authority submits that the ramifications of the Notification dated December 13, 2019, concerning the petitioner require assessment on facts by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which can be done within a reasonable time if directed by the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 183,Section 184,Section 185,Section 187

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ORDER SHEET WPO/230/2018 IA NO: GA/1/2020 (Old No.:GA/2563/2018) GA/2/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Juri iction ORIGINAL SIDE SHRI SWATARUP BANERJEE & ORS. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQRS)-8, KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR Date : 30th September, 2020. For Petitioners : Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhry, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Adv. Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title. By the order dated 24th September, 2020, this Court permitted learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue Authority to revert on the next date with appropriate instructions connected to the Notification dated 13th September, 2019 and numbered as S.O. 4455(E) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India (for short, the said Notification). Thereafter, on the same date, in presence of learned Counsel for both the petitioner and for the Revenue Authority and by consent of the parties,

2 this Court directed the matter to appear today at the first sitting. Such direction was passed considering the fact that the matter stands Assigned before this Bench

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 184

All 47 judgments and leading authorities on Section 184 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →