SHRI JAKER MIR SAYYAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER LATUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11292/2018HC BombayHCBM03033696201812 February 2019Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S V GANGAPURWALA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN M. DHAVALE5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while not inclined to consider the merits of the substantive appeals as they were pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, acknowledged the delay in filing the appeals and the petitioners' status as agriculturists. Considering these factors and the monetary claims involved, the Court passed an equitable order. The order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the stay application was set aside. This was conditional upon the petitioners depositing 25% of the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Appeals within six weeks. Upon this deposit, the attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts would be released. The Court directed the Commissioner of Appeals to expeditiously decide the application for condonation of delay and, depending on that decision, the appeals themselves. Parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner of Appeals on 04.03.2019, and the Commissioner was to decide the condonation of delay application within three months from that date.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, agriculturists, filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent No. 2) rejecting their stay application. The petitioners had filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals against the orders of the Assessing Officer, but there was a delay in filing these appeals. Along with the application for condonation of delay, they had also filed an application for stay of the Assessing Officer's order, which was rejected. The petitioners contended that income from agricultural land and interest awarded under the Land Acquisition Act are exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, and the impugned order failed to consider this. The revenue argued that the petitioners had not shown bonafides and the Assessing Officer had correctly computed the income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order rejecting the stay application is bad in law for failing to consider the exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning income from agricultural land and interest awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The income from agricultural land and interest awarded under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. - The impugned order rejecting the stay application did not consider these applicable provisions and is therefore bad in law. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioners have not shown any bonafides. - The Assessing Officer has rightly computed the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(37),Section 28,Section 34

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Smt. Kalpalata Patil ­ Bharaswadkar, learned counsel for

The impugned order dt. 02.04.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 on stay application is set aside on condition that the petitioners deposit 25%  of the amount as  assessed by the  Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Appeals within a period of six weeks from today.   On deposit of the amount, the bank accounts of the petitioners shall be released from attachment.  The Commissioner of Appeal shall endeavour to decide the application for condonation of delay   and   depending   upon   the   order   passed   in   application   for condonation of delay, the appeals, expeditiously.   The parties shall appear  before  the   Commissioner   of  Appeal   on   04.03.2019. The Commissioner of Appeal shall thereafter decide the application for condonation of delay within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner and depending upon the order passed in   the   application   for   condonation   of   delay,   the   appeals   also, expeditiously.

5 48WP11289.2018

6.

The Writ Petitions stand disposed of.  No costs. [  A. M. DHAVALE ] [  S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE Punde

More judgments on Section 10(37)

All 558 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(37) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →