Bansal Contruction Work Pvt Ltd vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes

PDF · subscribers
WP/15697/2026HC Madhya Pradesh30 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Abhijeet Shrivastava[P-1]For Respondent: Advocate General[R-1]
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, necessarily requires to be dealt with by the respondents. The Court observed that the petitioner had filed its return claiming depreciation under Section 32(1) and later sought rectification to claim additional depreciation under Section 32(iia) due to an inadvertent omission. Despite the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 and the filing of a revised return, the original rectification application remained undecided. The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission that the application must be dealt with. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with a specific direction to the respondents to decide the rectification application in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receiving the court's writ. No specific finding was made on the merits of the rectification claim itself, as the focus was on the procedural obligation to decide it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bansal Construction Work Pvt Ltd, filed its return of income on November 30, 2019, claiming depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the petitioner realized it had inadvertently missed claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(iia). On January 18, 2025, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act to correct this mistake. Following a search, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed a revised return on June 18, 2025, claiming the additional depreciation. However, the respondent finalized the reassessment proceedings without disposing of the pending rectification application. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to decide the rectification application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to decide the rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before finalizing reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, when the rectification application pertains to a claim of additional depreciation under Section 32(iia) of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent has finalized reassessment proceedings without disposing of the pending rectification application, despite all necessary details being available. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to decide the Section 154 application. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-department conceded that the rectification application necessarily requires to be dealt with.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1),Section 32(iia),Section 154,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 15697 of 2026 CNR No.: MPHC010296002026 BANSAL CONTRUCTION WORK PVT LTD Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner. Shri Harpreet S. Gupta - Advocate for respondent. ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje, Chief Justice This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"7.1 issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to decide the grievance of the petitioner and decided the 154 Application. 7.2 The Hon'ble High Court may pass such other or further order or issue such other direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7.3 The Hon'ble High Court may award cost to the petitioner as he was compelled to file the present writ Petition." 2. It is a case where the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had 1 WP-15697-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:78542 Signed by: SACHIN CHAUDHARY Signing time: 05-10-2026 16:15:59 Signature Not Verified

(ALPESH Y. KOGJE) CHIEF JUSTICE (VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE filed its return of income on 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) claiming depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Thereafter, realising that the petitioner had inadvertently missed out on claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(iia) of the Act, the petitioner preferred a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act on 18.01.2025 bringing the mistake to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer for correction. Pursuant to search being made, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner filed revised return on 18.06.2025 claiming additional depreciation. However, without disposing the pending rectification application, the respondent has finalised the reassessment proceedings. Learned counsel submits that despite all the details are available with the respondents, till date the rectification application has not been decided. 3. Learned standing counsel for the respondents-department submits that such rectification application necessarily requires to be dealt with. 4. In view of the said fact situation, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the rectification application (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the court. S/

2 WP-15697-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:78542 Signed by: SACHIN CHAUDHARY Signing time: 05-10-2026 16:15:59 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 32(1)

All 386 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →