ASHOK V TRIBHUVAN vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1205/2021HC BombayHCBM01017990202120 December 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryDisposed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted the CBDT's order dated September 28, 2021, which, in exercise of powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorized Commissioners of Income-tax (posted as Secretary to the Settlement Commission prior to February 1, 2021) to admit settlement applications filed after January 31, 2021, and before September 30, 2021, and to treat them as valid pending applications as defined in Section 245A(eb). The revenue's counsel stated that the petitioner's application, filed on March 15, 2021 (which falls within the extended period), would be considered subject to other conditions being fulfilled in accordance with law. Based on this submission, the Court considered the petition disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok V. Tribhuvan, filed a settlement application with the Income Tax Settlement Commission for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019-20 on March 15, 2021. This application was filed after the original deadline stipulated in Section 245C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but before the extended date of September 30, 2021. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court via a writ petition challenging the potential rejection of his application. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued an order dated September 28, 2021, authorizing Commissioners of Income-tax posted as Secretary to the Settlement Commission prior to February 1, 2021, to admit settlement applications filed after January 31, 2021, and before September 30, 2021, treating them as valid pending applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's settlement application, filed on March 15, 2021, for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019-20, is valid and should be processed as a pending application, given the CBDT's order dated September 28, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his application was filed within the extended period stipulated by the CBDT's order and should therefore be considered valid and processed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Settlement Commission and other respondents, stated that the petitioner's application would be considered subject to fulfillment of other legal conditions, implicitly acknowledging the applicability of the CBDT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245C,Section 245A,Section 119

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 911ii.WP-1205-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2021 Ashok V. Tribhuvan

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Ajay Singh a/w. Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w. Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 20th DECEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1 Mr. Singh tenders a copy of order dated 28th September 2021 issued by CBDT bearing F. No.299/22/2021-Dir (Inv. III)/174 in which paragraph 3 reads as under :- “3. In view of the above, the Board in exercise of its power under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in order to avoid genuine hardship to assessees authorizes the Commissioner of Income-tax, posted as Secretary to the Settlement Commission prior to 01.02.2021, to admit an application for settlement on behalf of the Interim Board filed after 31.01.2021, which is the date mentioned in sub-section (5) of section 245C of the Act for filing such application, and before 30.09.2021 and treat such applications as valid and process them as “pending applications” as defined in clause (eb) of section 245A of the act.” 2 It is stated in the petition that petitioner has filed Settlement Application for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2019-20 on 15th March 2021. Since that is before the extended date of 30th September 2021 as mentioned in the order, Mr. Walve states that petitioner’s application will also be considered subject to other conditions being fulfilled in accordance with law. Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2021.12.22 10:40:01 +0530

2/2 911ii.WP-1205-2021.doc 3 Petition accordingly stands disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad

More judgments on Section 245C

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →