Pr Commiossioner Of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan vs. M/S Dilip Buildcon Limited Plot No.5 Chuna Bhatti

PDF · subscribers
WP/6727/2017HC Madhya Pradesh10 July 2019Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Lal
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue regarding the delay in filing the return had already been decided by the same Court in W.P.No.21190/2015, where the delay was condoned and the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes was set aside. This earlier order had attained finality as it was not challenged. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that the Settlement Commission wrongly allowed deductions due to delayed filing had no merit and did not survive. Regarding the second issue, the Court noted that the Settlement Commission had extensively discussed the assessee's business activities and eligibility for infrastructure development benefits, recording findings of fact in favour of the assessee. The Court held that such findings of fact do not warrant interference in writ proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (the petitioner/Revenue) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission had allowed deductions under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act to M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. (the respondent/assessee). The Revenue's primary contention was that the deduction was wrongly allowed as the assessee's returns were filed after the due date specified under Section 139(1). The Revenue also argued that the assessee, being a works contractor involved only in road construction, was not eligible for benefits related to infrastructure development. The High Court had previously, in W.P.No.21190/2015, condoned the delay in the assessee's return filing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Settlement Commission erred in allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee's income tax return was filed after the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act? The Revenue contended that the deduction could only be considered if the return was filed within the prescribed time. The assessee argued that the issue of delay in filing returns had already been settled in their favour by a previous High Court order. 2. Whether the Settlement Commission wrongly allowed the benefit of provisions relating to work undertaken for infrastructural development to the assessee, who was allegedly only a works contractor involved in road construction? The Revenue argued that the assessee's nature of business disqualified them from claiming such benefits. The Settlement Commission, however, had extensively discussed this aspect and recorded findings in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IA(4),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 1 - Jabalpur, Dated : 10-07-2019 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. I.A.No.3498/2019 for recalling order dated 5.3.2019, is dismissed as not pressed, as the learned counsel for the respondent submits that he does not wish to press this application. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Revenue submits that the Settlement Commission has wrongly allowed deductions under Section 80-IA (4) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) without taking into consideration the fact that the said claim for deduction could have been considered only in case the return of income had been filed on or before the due date specified under Section 139 (1) of the Act. It is submitted that as the returns were filed after the period prescribed by law, therefore, the claim for deduction could not have been allowed or considered by the Settlement Commission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the issue of filing of returns after the date prescribed by law was taken up by the respondent before this Court by filing W.P.No.21190/2015 and this Court by order dated 30.6.2016, allowed the petition setting aside the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and condoned the delay on the part of the respondent in filing returns. Admittedly, the order passed by this Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P. No.21190/2015 has attained finality as the same has not been THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 2 - assailed or challenged by the petitioner before any higher Court. In such circumstances and in view of the order passed by this Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P. No.21190/2015, the issue regarding delay in filing the return does not survive and has been finally settled in favour of the respondent. In view of the order passed by this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Commission has wrongly allowed deductions under Section 80- IA (4) of the Act, without taking into consideration the aspect of delay, has no merit and does not survive for either being raised or adjudicated. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent was only involved in construction of roads as a contractor and, therefore, as he was only a works contractor, the benefit of the provisions relating to work undertaken for infrastructural development would not have been availed by the respondent and has wrongly been allowed by the Settlement Commission. From a perusal of the order, it is apparent that the Settlement Commission has discussed these aspects extensively in its order from paragraph 13 onwards and has recorded a finding in that regard in paragraph 13.4. The aforesaid finding in favour of the respondent, is a finding of fact and does not warrant any interference by this Court in writ proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed. (R. S. JHA)

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE pp. Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2019.07.15 13:19:10 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 80-IA(4)

All 86 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IA(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →