SILVERTOSS SHOPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, W. B. AND SIKKIM AND ORS

WPA/18644/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA036941202230 August 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the petitioner's claims, made solely on the technical ground of a delay of 26 minutes and 40 seconds in filing the return, was unjustifiable and not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that in these exceptional circumstances, and notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, both the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated July 6, 2022, and the intimation order dated April 11, 2020, were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the assessing officer to pass a fresh intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act, considering the merit of the claims made by the petitioner in its return. The assessing officer was directed to pass this fresh order within ten weeks from the date of communication of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Silvertoss Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order by the CIT (Appeals) dated July 6, 2022, which upheld an intimation order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance of the petitioner's claims was not based on merit but solely on the ground of a delay of 26 minutes and 40 seconds in filing the return for the relevant assessment year. The petitioner provided explanations regarding technical glitches encountered on the portal during the filing process. The writ petition also challenged the intimation order dated April 11, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of claims made by the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the technical ground of a minor delay in filing the return, is justifiable and sustainable in law. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the disallowance was unjustifiable as it was based on a technicality of a few minutes' delay and not on the merits of the claims. They also highlighted technical glitches faced on the portal, suggesting extenuating circumstances for the delay. The petitioner contended that in such exceptional circumstances, the alternative remedy of appeal might not be sufficient. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the Union of India (UOI) or the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

30.08.2022. p.b. Sl. No.10. W.P.A. 18644 of 2022 Silvertoss Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal & Sikkim & Ors. Mr. Arnab Chakraborty, Mr. Kushagra Shah. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Om Narayan Rai. ……..for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 6th July, 2022 confirming the intimation order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disallowing certain claims of the petitioner not on merit rather on the ground that there was a delay of 26 minutes and 40 seconds in filing the return relating to the relevant assessment year. Petitioner has provided detailed explanation about technical glitches petitioner faced on the portal in filing the return in question. Petitioner also challenges such intimation order dated 11th April, 2020 under Section 143(1) of the Act. On perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition and pleadings and submission made by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that disallowance of the claim in question made by

2 the petitioner only on the technical ground of delay of 26 minutes and 40 seconds in filing the return instead of merit, is unjustifiable and not sustainable in law and in such exceptional circumstances instead of availability of alternative remedy, both the order of CIT (Appeal) dated 6th July, 2022 and the intimation order dated 11th April, 2020 are quashed and the matter is returned back to the assessing officer concerned to pass a fresh intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act on merit of the claim made by the petitioner in its return which was rejected by the respondent assessing officer in his aforesaid impugned intimation order and such fresh order shall be passed by the assessing officer concerned within ten weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction, this writ petition being WPA No.18644 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →