VIJAY KESHAV MALGUNDKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER I

PDF · subscribers
WP/8368/2018HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01018194201813 April 20182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to Respondent No. 1. The Court directed the Income Tax Officer to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated March 1, 2018, for the closure of the Capital Gains Deposit Account as expeditiously as possible, preferably by April 20, 2018. This decision was based on the limited prayer made by the petitioner and the submission of the respondent's counsel. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for exemption under Sections 54/54F. The operative direction was to ensure timely consideration of the application, facilitating the petitioner's objective of making the payment to the builder within the stipulated timeframe. No issue was left undecided; the court addressed the procedural request.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Keshav Malgundkar, filed an application on March 1, 2018, before the Income Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) for the closure of his Capital Gains Deposit Account on Form G. The petitioner sought this closure to enable him to make a payment to a builder by April 21, 2018, and thereby avail the benefit of exemption under Sections 54/54F of the Income Tax Act. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide this application promptly. The respondent's counsel, upon being served, agreed that the authorities could be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application without prejudice to the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 1.3.2018 for closure of Capital Gains Deposit Account on Form G, in light of the petitioner's stated need to make a payment by 21.4.2018 to avail exemption under Sections 54/54F of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a direction was necessary for the respondent authorities to consider and decide his application for closure of the Capital Gains Deposit Account immediately, to enable him to meet the deadline for payment to the builder and claim the tax exemption. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel stated that the authorities may be directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner, without making any consensus on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-8368-2018 (VIJAY KESHAV MALGUNDKAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER I) Jabalpur, Dated : 13-04-2018 Shri G.N. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Uma Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. The only prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 1.3.2018 filed before the respondent No.1 for closure of Capital Gains Deposit Account on Form G immediately so as to enable the petitioner to make payment to the builder by 21.4.2018 and to avail the benefit of exemption under Sections 54/54F of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on whom a copy of the petition is served in the Court, states that without making consensus on the merits of the case, the authorities may be directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the limited prayer made in the petition, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 1.3.2018 for closure of account as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 20.4.2018. To enable the respondent/authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served on the respondent/authority. C.C. today. (RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE pp High Court of Madhya Pradesh Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2018.04.13 16:23:10 +05'30'

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →