JAGDISH THAKKAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I

PDF · subscribers
WP/4054/2015HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01012740201522 September 20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner, Jagdish Thakkar, to deposit the actual tax demand made by the department within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon compliance, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur, was directed to take up the matter and consider the questions of waiver of interest, imposition of penalty, and return of the petitioner's assets. The Commissioner was to decide these issues within 60 days after the tax deposit. The Court referenced the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.M. Milani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court provided a clear procedural path for resolution.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Jagdish Thakkar against the Commissioner of Income Tax-I and another. A search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on November 23, 1982. Following this, an assessment order was passed. The matter remained pending, with issues concerning the waiver of interest, return of seized assets, and imposition of penalty yet to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not deposited the actual tax demanded since the assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax should consider the waiver of interest, imposition of penalty, and return of assets in light of the pending proceedings post a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Jagdish Thakkar, sought a resolution of the pending issues concerning waiver of interest, return of assets, and penalty imposition, which had been delayed since the search and seizure operation in 1982. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner had not deposited the actual tax demanded since the assessment order was passed, implying this non-compliance was a factor in the delay or consideration of the pending issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP-4054-2015 (JAGDISH THAKKAR Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I) 22-09-2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR W.P.No.4054/2015 Jagdish Thakkar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I and another Present: Hon'ble Shir Justice Rajendra Menon Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar Shri Abhishek Oswal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the respondents. _____________________________________________________ ORDER (22/09/2015) Per Rajendra Menon, J. Having heard learned counsel for the parties with regard to the issue in question and after considering the principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of B.M. Milani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2008 219 CTR 313. we find that after search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 23.11.1982, the matter is still pending and the question of waver of interest, return of the assets and imposition of penalty is to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. 2. It is the case of the revenue that after assessment order has been passed till date petitioner has not deposited the actual tax demanded. Taking note of all these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit the actual tax demand made by the department for the order of assessment within a period of four weeks from today and on the same being done, the matter shall be taken up by the commissioner of Income Tax respondent No.1 who shall consider the question of waver of interest, imposition of penalty and return of assets of the petitioner. 3. After hearing all concerns and in accordance with requirements of law within a period of 60 days, after the tax is deposited by the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →