SHREE ATHARVA BUILDCON vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1202/2021HC BombayHCBM01018052202120 December 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted the CBDT order dated September 28, 2021, which, in exercise of powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorized the Commissioner of Income-tax posted as Secretary to the Settlement Commission to admit settlement applications filed after January 31, 2021, but before September 30, 2021, and treat them as valid pending applications. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that their application was filed on March 15, 2021, which falls within this extended period. The respondents stated that the petitioner's application would be considered subject to other conditions being fulfilled. Based on these submissions and the CBDT order, the petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Atharva Buildcon, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an action related to their settlement application. The petitioner had filed a settlement application for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 on March 15, 2021. The Income Tax Settlement Commission and other respondents were the parties involved. The core of the issue revolved around the validity of settlement applications filed after the initial deadline but within an extended period, as authorized by a CBDT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's settlement application, filed on March 15, 2021, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21, is valid and should be processed as a 'pending application' under Section 245A(eb) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, given the CBDT's order dated September 28, 2021, issued under Section 119(2)(b). The petitioner contended that their application was filed before the extended deadline of September 30, 2021, as stipulated in the CBDT order, and therefore should be considered valid. The revenue, represented by the respondents, stated that the petitioner's application would be considered subject to fulfillment of other legal conditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 245C,Section 245A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 911.WP-1202-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1202 OF 2021 Shree Atharva Buildcon ….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. 2016-17 to A.Y. 2020-21 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 10:39:59 +0530

2/2 911.WP-1202-2021.doc 3 Petition accordingly stands disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →