CHHOTU RAM KISAN SHIKSHA SAMITI vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18228/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01083234202114 November 2022Author: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the statement made by the counsel for the respondent that the appeal filed by the petitioner on December 22, 2019, under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be decided on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court accepted the statement that the petitioner's application dated October 19, 2020, filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, pertaining to the recovery and direct transfer of funds from the petitioner's bank account, would be treated as an application for review of the orders/actions passed by the assessing authority and would be dealt with on merits within a period of four weeks. The Court clarified that it had not examined the issues on merits. No further directions were required, and the writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chhotu Ram Kisan Shiksha Samiti, is challenging an assessment order dated November 13, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind, for assessment year 2017-18. This order raised a demand of ₹42,88,091, and a notice of demand was served on November 22, 2019. The petitioner filed an appeal on December 22, 2019, under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's primary contention in the writ petition is that this statutory appeal remains undecided. Additionally, the petition seeks a mandamus for the refund of ₹39,92,422, which was recovered by the department by directly transferring funds from the petitioner's bank account. The department acknowledges an application dated October 19, 2020, filed by the petitioner concerning this recovery.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessment order dated November 13, 2019, has been decided or is pending? 2. Whether the recovery of ₹39,92,422 made by the respondent-department by direct transfer from the petitioner's bank account is to be refunded, and if so, how should the petitioner's application dated October 19, 2020, be treated and decided? Assessee's Contention: The primary contention is that the statutory appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is still pending and has not been decided. The petitioner also seeks a refund of the amount recovered from its bank account. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that the appeal dated December 22, 2019, would be decided on merits within six weeks. Regarding the recovery, the revenue submitted that the petitioner's application dated October 19, 2020, would be treated as an application for review of the assessing authority's orders/actions and would be dealt with on merits within four weeks.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1),Section 156,Section 246-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18228-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2022 Chhotu Ram Kisan Shiksha Samiti …Petitioner Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for Income Tax Department-respondent. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA , J.(Oral) CM-17842-CWP-2022 Prayer in the application is to place on record the scanned copy of the reply dated 13.01.2020 in response to notice under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice in the application. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice. A complete copy of the application along with accompanying Annexure P-8 has been furnished to him. Counsel for the respondent raises an objection as regards the authenticity of the documents sought to be placed on record. Be that as it may, the application is allowed. The accompanying document is taken on record as Annexure P-8. Application disposed of. SARITA RANI 2022.11.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document/order

CWP-18228-2021 (O&M) Main case As per averments made in the petition, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, the third respondent i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind concluded the assessment of the petitioner-society vide order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) raising demand of `42,88,091/-. A notice of demand as regards such assessment was served upon the petitioner on 22.11.2019. Copy of the assessment order as also notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act stand appended as Annexure P-5 along with the petition. Petitioner filed an appeal dated 22.12.2019 under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The primary prayer raised in the instant petition that such statutory appeal is still pending consideration and has not been decided. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, counsel for the respondent makes a statement that the appeal dated 22.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) would be decided on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. Statement is accepted. Further, we find that even though there is no specific prayer

as regards the action of the respondent-department in having made recovery and having directly transferred `39,92,422/- from the account of the petitioner-society maintained in Central Bank of India, Jind, yet there is a prayer in the petition for issuance of mandamus to refund such recovery.

CWP-18228-2021 (O&M) Even in such regard, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an application dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) has been filed by the petitioner-society to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak pertaining to such recovery and direct transfer from the account maintained by the petitioner-society. Counsel for the respondent submits that such application dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) would be treated as an application of review of the orders/action that has been passed by the assessing authority and such application would also be dealt with on merits within a period of four weeks. Even such statement is accepted. No further directions are required to be passed. Writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that we have not examined the issue on merits. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE November 14, 2022 sarita Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →