MADHUKAR BALWANT WAGHAMARE vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5458/2022HC BombayHCBM01017969202225 July 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the designated authority to decide the petitioner's application filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, preferably within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court observed that if such an application was filed, it ought to have been decided within a reasonable period, which had not happened. The Court further stated that if any cause of action survives after the application is decided on merits, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court again to press all issues raised in the present petition. Until the designated authority takes a decision, the impugned order dated March 25, 2022, and the connected demand notice shall not be acted upon. The issue regarding the sustainability of the order dated March 25, 2022, in the absence of a Section 143(2) notice, was implicitly left undecided pending the decision on the Scheme application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhukar Balwant Waghamare, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 25, 2022. The petitioner argued that the order was unsustainable as no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued. Additionally, the petitioner had invoked the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, by filing an application on September 21, 2016, before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune. Despite the lapse of six years, this application remained undecided. The respondents did not deny the filing of this application. The High Court noted that such an application should have been decided within a reasonable period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated March 25, 2022, is sustainable in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 2. Whether the designated authority under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, has failed to decide the petitioner's application filed on September 21, 2016, within a reasonable period? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The order dated March 25, 2022, is unsustainable due to the non-issuance of a Section 143(2) notice. - The application filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, has not been decided for six years, which is an unreasonable delay. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through learned counsel, did not deny the fact that the petitioner had filed an application under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

35.

WP 5458-22.doc Chittewan IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5458 OF 2022

Madhukar Balwant Waghamare … Petitioner Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-tax Officer And Others … Respondents *** Mr. Pradip Jetley, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. S.R. Ganbavale, Mr. Shubham K. Kanade and Ms. Rati S. Sinhasane i/b Rati S. Sinhasane for the Respondents. ***

CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &

ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 25 JULY 2022 P. C. : . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that notwithstanding the challenge to the Order dated 25 March 2022, which is unsustainable, inasmuch as no Notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961, the Petitioner had also invoked the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (“Scheme”) and made an application dated 21 September 2016 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune, which is the designated Authority in terms of the Scheme. It is stated that despite lapse of six years, the application has not been decided by the Authority. In case such an application was filed, which fact, however, is not denied by learned Counsel for the Respondents, the same ought to have been decided within a reasonable period, which does not appear to have been done in the present case.

1/2

35.

WP 5458-22.doc Chittewan 2 Be that as it may, this Petition is disposed of with a direction to the designated Authority to decide the application filed by the Petitioner under the Scheme, preferably within four weeks from today. In case after the application of the Petitioner is decided on merits, in terms of the Scheme, any cause survives, the Petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court to press all issues, which are otherwise prayed in the present case. Till the decision is taken by the designated Authority, the Order dated 25 March 2022 impugned in the present Petition and connected demand notice etc. shall not be acted upon. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)

2/2 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2022.07.27 11:53:08 +0530

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →