BISHAN DAS GOYAL HUF vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2693/2019HC DelhiDLHC01014729201918 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission did not err in rejecting the petitioner's settlement application for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Court referred to Explanation (i) to Clause (b) of Section 245A of the Act, which defines a 'case' as a pending assessment proceeding. Explanation (i)(a) states that a proceeding for assessment or reassessment under Section 147 is deemed to have commenced from the date a notice under Section 148 is issued. Since no notice under Section 148 was issued for the said AYs, and the time for normal assessment under Section 139 had expired, no assessment proceedings were pending. Therefore, the settlement application was not maintainable for these years. The Court found no infirmity with the Commission's decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bishan Das Goyal HUF, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.12.2017 by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Commission had declared the petitioner's settlement application invalid for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Commission's reasoning was that no assessment proceedings were pending for these AYs. The petitioner had filed returns under Section 139 for these years, but the time for the Assessing Officer to make an assessment had expired, and no notice under Section 148 for reassessment had been issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Settlement Commission erred in rejecting the petitioner's settlement application under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, on the grounds that no proceedings were pending for these years. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their settlement application was valid. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments beyond filing the petition and challenging the Commission's order. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14) implicitly supported the Settlement Commission's decision. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments beyond their appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245D(1),Section 245C(1),Section 148,Section 245A(b),Section 139,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2023:DHC:3495-DB

W.P.(C) No.2693/2019

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment delivered on:18.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 2693/2019 BISHAN DAS GOYAL HUF

..... Petitioner versus THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Vineet Garg & Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendera Singh, Sr. SC with Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Mr. Viplav Acharya & Mr. Akash Saxena,Advs. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereafter ‘the Commission’) under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) to the limited extent that the settlement application under Section 245C(1) of the Act was held to be invalid for the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:19.05.2023 Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:3495-DB

W.P.(C) No.2693/2019

Page 2 of 4

2.

The Commission had concluded that there were no proceedings for assessment, relating to the petitioner, pending under the Act in respect of the said assessment years and thus, there was no case relating to the petitioner in respect of the said assessment years. Therefore, the application under Section 245C(1) of the Act would not be maintainable in respect of the said assessment years. 3. Thus, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the Commission had erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 245C(1) of the Act in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Admittedly, the time for the Assessing Officer to make an assessment pursuant to the returns filed by the petitioner under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 had expired and no notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act for assessment, reassessment or re-computation of the petitioner’s income for the said years. 4. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Goyal & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.: WP(C) No. 3928/2017. 5. Clause (b) of Section 245A of the Act, as applicable at the time of making the application, reads as under:- “245A. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx

xxx

xxx Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:19.05.2023 Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:3495-DB

W.P.(C) No.2693/2019

Page 3 of 4

(b) “case” means any proceeding for assessment under this Act, of any person in respect of any assessment year or assessment years which may be pending before an Assessing Officer on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 245C is made.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause- (i) a proceeding for assessment or reassessment or recomputation under section 147 shall be deemed to have commenced- (a) from the date on which a notice under section 148 is issued for any assessment year; (b) from the date of issuance of the notice referred to in sub- clause (a), for any other assessment year or assessment years for which a notice under section 148 has not been issued, but such notice could have been issued on such date, if the return of income for the other assessment year or assessment years has been furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 142; (ii) *** (iii) a proceeding for making fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which such order, setting aside or cancelling an assessment was passed; (iiia) a proceeding for assessment or reassessment for any of the assessment years,referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A in case of a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C, shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of issue of notice initiating such proceeding and concluded on the date onwhich the assessment is made; (iv) a proceeding for assessment for any assessment year, other than the proceedings of assessment or reassessment referred to in clause (i) or clause (iii) or clause (iiia)", shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the return of income for that assessment year is furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice served under section 142 and concluded on the date on which the assessment is made; or on Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:19.05.2023 Signature Not Verified

2023:DHC:3495-DB

W.P.(C) No.2693/2019

Page 4 of 4

the expiry of two years from the end of relevant assessment year, in case where no assessment is made;” 6. A plain reading of Explanation (i) to Clause (b) of Section 245A of the Act clearly indicates that the proceedings in relation to assessment or reassessment or re-computation under Section 147 of the Act had not commenced in respect of the Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and therefore, we find no infirmity with the decision of the Commission that the petitioner’s application under Section 245C of the Act in respect of the said assessment years, was not maintainable. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 18, 2023 Ch

Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:19.05.2023 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 245D(1)

All 61 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245D(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →