MOHIT AGARWAL S/O SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1071/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02087558202128 May 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the changed circumstances and the submissions made by both parties. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the assessing authority by filing an application seeking a review of its earlier order dated November 12, 2021. The assessing authority was instructed to consider this review application and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not decide the merits of the additions but provided a procedural path for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohit Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an income tax assessment order. The core of his argument was that the additions made to his income were identical to amounts already settled and taxed in his father's case. Crucially, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Settlement Commission accepted the settlement application filed by the petitioner's father on August 28, 2023. This settlement order meant the father had paid tax on the disputed amount. The petitioner contended that the authorities should consider his application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of this settlement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made to the petitioner's income should be reconsidered in light of the settlement order passed in his father's case? (Question of law and fact, concerning the principle of double taxation and the impact of a settlement in a related party's case). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the entire addition made to his income was already taxed in his father's hands due to the settlement accepted by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the authorities should consider his application under Section 220(6) of the Act in this changed circumstance. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that if the petitioner files an application seeking a review of the earlier order passed by the assessing authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, taking into account all materials, including the settlement order in the father's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:25488-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1071/2022 Mohit Agarwal S/o Shri Govind Agarwal, aged about 32 years, R/o S-254, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Sanghi Farm, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 2. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jaipur, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gunjan Pathak Advocate with Mr. Kanishk Singhal Advocate Ms. Priyanshi Roongta Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 28/05/2024 1. Heard. 2. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of this writ petition, an order has been passed by the Settlement Commission on 28.08.2023 by which application for settlement filed by father of the petitioner has been accepted. 3. Case of the petitioner has been that the entire addition which has been made in the case of the petitioner is nothing but the amount which is added to the income of his father on which tax has also been paid by father of the petitioner by way of settlement which has been accepted as reflected in settlement order dated (Uploaded on 30/05/2024 at 03:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:23 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:25488-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1071/2022] 28.08.2023. Therefore, in these circumstances, the authorities are required to consider petitioner’s application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) in proper perspective keeping in view the aforesaid order. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue would submit that if the petitioner submits an application seeking review of the order earlier passed by the assessing authority on 12.11.2021, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law after due application of mind to all the materials placed before the assessing authority including settlement order dated 28.08.2023 passed in the case of settlement proceedings relating to father of the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement as also in changed circumstances, we are inclined to dispose off this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the assessing authority by filing an application seeking review of its earlier order dated 12.11.2021 who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on petitioner’s application under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off. 7. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI /37 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/05/2024 at 03:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:23 AM)

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →