RAKESH RAGHUNATH BIDKAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2122/2021HC BombayHCBM01020133202108 December 2021Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found the facts of the present case to be almost identical to those in the case of Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Others. In Stride Multitrade, the appeal with a condonation of delay application was filed on February 6, 2020. Similarly, in the present case, the application for condonation of delay was filed on February 26, 2020. As this date precedes the circular dated December 4, 2020, referenced in the Stride Multitrade judgment, the High Court held that the present petition also had to be allowed. The operative direction was to issue a Writ of Mandamus as per prayer clause (b) of the petition, directing the respondent to verify the petitioner's declaration under the VSV Act for AY 2017-18, accept it, issue Form 3, and exclude the time from the impugned order until the issue of Form 3 for determining payment cut-off dates.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Raghunath Bidkar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Pune. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to verify his declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act for Assessment Year 2017-18, accept it, and issue Form 3. The petitioner also requested that the time from the impugned order until the issue of Form 3 be excluded for determining payment cut-off dates under the VSV Act and Rules. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay was filed on February 26, 2020. The revenue was represented by Mr. Sham V. Walve and Mr. Pritish Chatterjee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to verify the petitioner's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act for AY 2017-18, accept it, and issue Form 3, and to exclude the time from the impugned order till the issue of Form 3 for determining payment cut-off dates, in light of the facts and relevant provisions of the VSV Act and Rules. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Others. The petitioner argued that since their application for condonation of delay was filed before the date of the circular dated December 4, 2020, which was considered in the Stride Multitrade case, their petition should be allowed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 913-WP-2122-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2122 OF 2021 Rakesh Raghunath Bidkar ….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Pune and Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b Farzeen Khambatta for Petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 8th DECEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr. Bhave and Mr. Walve and considered the petition, reply and rejoinder etc. 2. The judgment of this court in Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Others1 relied upon by Mr.Bhave comes to the aid of petitioner. The facts in Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the facts in the case at hand are almost identical. In Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., the appeal with condonation of delay application had been filed on 6th February, 2020 where as in the case at hand has filed on 26th February, 2020. Since, the application for condonation of delay is filed before the date of circular dated 4th December, 2020 referred to in the Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this petition also has to be allowed. 1 [2021] 439 ITR 141 (Bom) Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2021.12.10 15:02:13 +0530

2/2 913-WP-2122-2021.doc 2. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under : (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any order writ, order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No.1 to verify the Petitioner’s Declaration under the VSV Act for AY 2017- 18 (Exhibit G), and to accept the same and issue the consequent Form 3 under the VSV Rules determining the amount payable by Petitioner in terms of Section 3 of the VSV Act, and further, direct the Respondents to exclude the time from the Impugned Order till the issue of Form 3 for the purpose of determining the cut-off dates for making payment/s in terms of the VSV Act and the VSV Rules. 3. Petition disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 3

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →