Bank Of India vs. Office Of Income Tax Tds 2

WP/29507/2023HC Madhya Pradesh14 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA2 pages

For Petitioner: Arpit GuruFor Respondent: Veena Mandlik

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the order of the ITAT, which decided the appeal on merits (albeit on limitation), should have been challenged by filing an Income Tax Appeal (ITA) before the High Court, as an ITA is entertained only on questions of law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's impugned order. It noted that the Bank's affidavit regarding the date of receipt of the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect, as the order dated 01/08/2019 was dispatched on 16/09/2019 and received by the Bank, with no acknowledgment of receipt on 19/12/2020. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The issue of the actual merits of the appeal before the ITAT was not decided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bank of India, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22/06/2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Bank's appeal against an order dated 01/08/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore, on the grounds of limitation. The Bank contended that it received the CIT(A)'s order on 19/12/2020, after which it processed the matter for filing an appeal. An affidavit was filed to support the condonation of delay. However, the High Court noted that the CIT(A)'s order dated 01/08/2019 was dispatched on 16/09/2019 and received by the Bank, with no acknowledgment of receipt on 19/12/2020, indicating an incorrect affidavit was filed. The total tax liability in dispute was Rs. 2,06,552/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the Bank's appeal on the ground of limitation, considering the Bank's submission regarding the date of receipt of the CIT(A)'s order and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal. (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of limitation periods and condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The Bank argued that it received the CIT(A)'s order on 19/12/2020 and thereafter processed the matter for filing an appeal, supporting this with an affidavit. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not explicitly record arguments but the High Court's findings indicate a dispute regarding the date of receipt of the order and the veracity of the affidavit filed by the Bank.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 29507 of 2023 BANK OF INDIA Versus OFFICE OF INCOME TAX TDS 2 Appearance: Shri Arpit Guru - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shantanu Sharma - Advocate for respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22/06/2023 (Annex.-P/3), whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 0 2 . The petitioner Bank filed an appeal against the order dated 01/08/2019, whereby the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore and copy of this order was dispatched to the Bank, but according to the Bank the same was received on 19/12/2020 by the officer concern and thereafter, the matter was processed to Main Branch for filing an appeal. An affidavit of Surendra Kumar Meena was filed in support of application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal did not find any reason to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 1 WP-29507-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17881 Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 7/14/2025 4:56:32 PM Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE 03. Since the appeal was decided on merits, therefore, instead of filing ITA before this Court, the Bank has filed present writ petition. 0 4 . It is settled law that ITA before this Court is liable to be entertained only on the question of law, therefore, this petition is not maintainable because this order is liable to be challenged in ITA. 05. Vide order dated 07/12/2023, this Court directed the petitioner to file service report of the order dated 17/06/2019. In compliance of the order, petitioner filed a list of documents, which shows that the order dated 01/08/2019 was dispatched on 16/09/2019 and as per acknowledgment, it was received by the Bank. In the said acknowledgment, there is no such date of 19/12/2020, therefore, incorrect affidavit was filed to show the date of receipt of the order. Even otherwise the total tax liability is only Rs.2,06,552/-. 06. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Tej 2 WP-29507-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17881 Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 7/14/2025 4:56:32 PM Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →