VASSUDEVA DEMPO FAMILY PRIVATE TRUST THR. ATTORNEY SHARMILA SANDEEP PRABHU vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/554/2022HC BombayHCBM05003068202206 February 2023Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHARAT P. DESHPANDE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the objection raised by the revenue regarding the availability of an alternate remedy. The Court followed the course adopted by a coordinate Bench in Haren Textile (P) Ltd. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the other issues sought to be raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to institute the revision petition within two weeks. The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition was to be excluded for determining the issue of limitation for the revision. The interim relief granted earlier was extended for six weeks or until the revisional authority considered the application for interim relief. The contentions of the parties on merits were left open. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vassudeva Dempo Family Private Trust, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14/10/2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Panaji. This order rejected the petitioner's application seeking immunity. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, argued that while an appeal might not be maintainable against the impugned order, a remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act was available. This objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy was reiterated by the revenue's counsel. The High Court considered this objection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternate remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the order rejecting their application for immunity. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or against the availability of the revisionary remedy. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that an appeal might not lie against the impugned order, but the remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable. This objection was reiterated by the Standing Counsel. The revenue relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the High Court in Haren Textile (P) Ltd. v/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3 WP-554-2022.DOC Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2022 VASSUDEVA DEMPO FAMILY PRIVATE TRUST THR. ATTORNEY SHARMILA SANDEEP PRABHU ...Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS … Respondents Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar with Ms. Pooja Naik and Mr. Rohan Deshpande, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. Karpe, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.

3.

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 6th FEBRUARY,2023. P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar who appears along with Ms. Pooja Naik and Mr. Rohan Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Karpe, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. 6th February, 2023

3 WP-554-2022.DOC

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14/10/2022 made by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Circle-1 Panaji rejecting the petitioner's application seeking immunity.

3.

In the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is submitted that though an appeal might not lie against the impugned order, remedy of revision would be applicable. The affidavit also relies on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Haren Textile (P) Ltd. v/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai 1. This objection based on availability of alternate remedy is reiterated by Ms. Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Considering the above objection and without going into the other issues sought to be raised by Mr. Naniwadekar, we relegate the petitioner to avail of the remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. In support, we follow the course adopted by the coordinate Bench in Haren Textile (P) Ltd.(supra).

5.

Mr. Naniwadekar states that necessary revision petition will be instituted within two weeks from today. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we clarify that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this petition should be excluded for determining the issue of limitation, if any. Further, the interim relief granted by this Court on 29/11/2022 is extended for a period of six weeks from today or until the petitioner's application for interim relief before the revisional authority to consider whether the revision petition should itself be disposed of expeditiously 1 [2021] 132 taxmann.com 39 (Bombay) 6th February, 2023

3 WP-554-2022.DOC considering the short issue involved.

6.

Thus, by leaving contentions of the parties on merits open we dispose of this petition in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs.

7.

All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. M. S. SONAK, J. 6th February, 2023 MEENA VISHAL BHOIR VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2023.02.07 10:40:47 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →