GEWIS ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE

PDF · subscribers
WP/15219/2023HC BombayHCBM01037564202319 December 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated April 13, 2023. The Court found the Revenue's stand on limitation to be incorrect, as it erroneously considered the date of file transfer to Pune as the application date, despite the applications being filed in 2017. Furthermore, the Court noted that the order was signed by a Joint Commissioner on behalf of the PCCIT, when the application was to be heard and disposed of by the PCCIT itself, and no order had been passed by the PCCIT. The Court directed the PCCIT to personally consider the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the PCCIT is to dispose of the Petitioner's application on merits after giving the Petitioner a personal hearing, with at least five working days' advance notice. The order to be passed by January 29, 2024, must be reasoned and deal with all submissions. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Gewis Engineering India Private Limited, filed revised income tax returns for Assessment Years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 on March 29, 2017, after the due dates under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These revised returns claimed credit for foreign taxes paid in Germany and sought proportionate refunds of Indian taxes. The Petitioner filed applications for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Despite reminders, no action was taken by the department. The Petitioner's registered address and jurisdiction were transferred from Mumbai to Pune. Subsequently, the Petitioner received a communication dated April 13, 2023, rejecting its condonation applications as grossly barred by limitation, erroneously considering the transfer date of files to Pune as the application date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's applications for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, considering the Revenue's incorrect calculation of the limitation period. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the Revenue incorrectly calculated the limitation period by considering the date of file transfer to Pune (January 16, 2023) instead of the actual date of filing the applications in 2017. The Petitioner also contended that the impugned order dated April 13, 2023, was issued on the letterhead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), Pune, but signed by a Joint Commissioner, whereas the application was meant to be heard and disposed of by the PCCIT itself. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue requested the matter be stood over to file an affidavit-in-reply. However, the Court did not grant this request, stating that the facts did not require a reply and that there was nothing to improvise or explain the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/4 909-aswp-15219-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15219 OF 2023 Gewis Engineering India Private Limited …Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Rohan Deshpande a/w Mr. Abdul Rehman i/b Mr. Smit Shah for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 19th December 2023 PC:- 1. At the outset, Mr. Suresh Kumar requests the matter be stood over so that he can file an affidavit-in-reply. We are not inclined to grant the request of Mr. Suresh Kumar, because the Petition has been served on the department on or about 12th September 2023 and on 11th December 2023, the matter was stood over at the request of Mr. Suresh Kumar. Mr. Deshpande undertakes to file affidavit of service within two weeks. In any case, the facts of the matter does not require any reply to be filed. We felt there is nothing to improvise on or explain the impugned order. 2. Petitioner had filed various applications seeking refund of certain amounts in relation to withholding taxes deposited by its principal for Assessment Year 2010-2011 to Assessment Year 2014- Gitalaxmi

2/4 909-aswp-15219-2023.doc 2015. Prior to filing the applications, Petitioner also preferred to file revised returns under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 29th March 2017, which were after the due dates specified under Section 139(5) of the Act. Petitioner was claiming credit of the foreign taxes paid in Germany and seeking proportionate refund of taxes paid by Petitioner in India. 3. Petitioner filed applications for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing the revised returns. Copies of various documents were also annexed. Petitioner addressed communications reminding the department about the pending applications. No steps were taken despite reminders. 4. On or about 5th April 2019, Petitioner moved its registered address from Mumbai to Pune and an appropriate intimation letter dated 24th June 2022 was sent to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) in Mumbai and its immediate superiors under the Act about the change in registered address. It was also requested that the entire assessment records upto Assessment Year 2021-2022 be sent to the JAO in Pune. Petitioner’s PAN and jurisdiction also came to be transferred from Mumbai to Pune with effect from 19th December 2022. 5. Petitioner thereafter followed up the matter with the Gitalaxmi

3/4 909-aswp-15219-2023.doc appropriate authority in Pune. 6. Petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned communication dated 13th April 2023 stating that the applications for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act filed by Petitioner for Assessment Year 2010-2011 to Assessment Year 2014- 2015 had been rejected. The reason for rejection was that the applications were grossly barred by limitation. The concerned officer has taken the date of Petitioner’s application as the date on which the files were transferred from Mumbai to Pune, i.e., 16th January 2023, when Petitioner had filed the application way back in 2017 itself. This, in our view, is an absolutely incorrect stand being taken by the Revenue. We also find that the order/communication has been issued on the letter-head of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCCIT”), Pune but signed by one Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on behalf of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, when the application has to be heard and disposed by the PCCIT itself. There is no order passed by the PCCIT. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order/communication dated 13th April 2023. 7. The PCCIT shall consider the application filed by Petitioner for condonation of delay personally and, if the delay is condoned, to dispose Petitioner’s application on merits. Before passing any order, Gitalaxmi

4/4 909-aswp-15219-2023.doc Petitioner shall be given a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five working days in advance. If Petitioner wishes to record what transpired during the personal hearing, it may file written submissions within three working days from the date of conclusion of the personal hearing. 8. The order to be passed by 29th January 2024 shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions by Petitioner. 9. Petition disposed. 10. We clarify we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2023.12.22 15:57:25 +0545

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →