AM ENTERPRISES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4438/2021HC BombayHCBM01026990202120 December 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 the Commissioner 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 and process them as 'pending applications' as defined in Section 245A(eb). The Court was informed that the petitioner's application was filed on March 1, 2021, which is before the extended date of September 30, 2021. The respondents stated that the petitioner's application would be considered subject to other conditions being fulfilled. Consequently, the petition was disposed of on this basis.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, AM Enterprises, filed a settlement application for Assessment Years (AY) 2019-20 and 2020-21 on March 1, 2021. This application was filed after the original deadline of January 31, 2021, but before the extended deadline of September 30, 2021. The petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay through a writ petition challenging the potential rejection of their settlement application. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The core of the matter revolves around the validity of settlement applications filed after January 31, 2021, but before September 30, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether settlement applications filed after January 31, 2021, but before September 30, 2021, are valid and can be processed as 'pending applications' under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in light of the CBDT's order dated September 28, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their settlement application, filed on March 1, 2021, falls within the extended period stipulated by the CBDT's order and should therefore be considered valid and processed. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through Mr. Walve, stated that the petitioner's application will be considered subject to fulfillment of other conditions in accordance with law, implying acceptance of the applicability of the CBDT's order to the petitioner's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 245A,Section 245C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 919.WP-4438-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4438 OF 2021 AM Enterprises

….Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Pune & Ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Rohan Deshpande i/b. Adv. Farzeen Khambatta 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. Deshpande 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. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2020-21 on 1st 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 Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2021.12.22 15:46:12 +0530

2/2 919.WP-4438-2021.doc subject to other conditions being fulfilled in accordance with law. 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 →