GOA SHIPYARD LTD. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN and MD, RADM SHEKHAR MITAL., vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR( OT and WT) GOVT. OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.,

PDF · subscribers
WP/665/2017HC BombayHCBM05002295201706 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. M. JAMDAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the observations made in the impugned CBDT order, stating that the TDS credit was considered and disallowed on merits by the Assessing Officer, were not correct. The Court found from the records that the issue of TDS credit of Rs. 1,03,15,783/- was not considered by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings. This was also reflected in the order dated November 11, 2014, passed by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the Petitioner's claim for grant of TDS credit had not been considered by any of the authorities for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim for TDS credit in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was permitted to submit material to justify its claim. The Assessing Officer was instructed not to be influenced by the CBDT's observations and to decide the matter within four months from the Petitioner's appearance on August 28, 2018. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, M/s Goa Shipyard Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 21, 2017, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CBDT rejected the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a supplementary claim for credit of two TDS certificates aggregating Rs. 1,03,15,783/-. The Petitioner's grievance stemmed from the non-consideration of these TDS certificates during the assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09, which was reopened under Section 147. The Petitioner had claimed credit for these certificates in its revised return and also filed an application for condonation of delay. The impugned CBDT order stated that the Assessing Officer had considered and disallowed the credit on merits in the reassessment order, which was part of a pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CBDT's rejection of the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a supplementary claim for TDS credit was justified, considering the Petitioner's contention that the TDS credit was not considered by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the CBDT's observation that the TDS credit was considered and disallowed on merits by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The Petitioner claimed that the issue of TDS credit was not considered by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment and was also not reflected in the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Petitioner's claim for TDS credit for Assessment Year 2008-09 had not been considered by any authority. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the impugned order of the CBDT was based on the premise that the Assessing Officer had already dealt with the issue on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

vinita 1 WP 665-17 dt6.8.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2017. M/s Goa Shipyard Ltd. Rep. by its chairman & MD Radm Shekhar Mital., … Petitioner. Versus The Central Board of Direct Taxes Rep. by its Director (OT &WT) Govt. of India and 2 ors. ... Respondents Mr. Chythanya K.K. and Mr.Shailesh Redkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Coram : Shantanu S. Kemkar & N. M. Jamdar, JJ. Date : 6 August 2018. P.C.: Challenging the order dated 21 March 2017 Exh. A passed by the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by which the Petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in filing supplementary claim of credit has been rejected the Petitioner has filed this petition.

vinita 2 WP 665-17 dt6.8.18 2. During the course of hearing, it is revealed that the petitioner's grievance is regarding non-consideration of Two TDS certificates aggregating Rs.1,03,15,783/- while Assessment of the returns for the Assessment year 2008-09. It is also revealed from the record that the Assessment in question was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. In the Returns filed in response to the notice under Section 148, the Petitioner had claimed credit of the said two TDS certificates. The Petitioner had also moved an application for condonation of delay for grant of credit of the said two TDS certificates alongwith original returns which came to be rejected by the impugned order passed by the CBDT on the ground that in the reassessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has considered and disallowed the said two TDS credit at Rs.1,03,15,783/- on merits and the said issue forms part of the pending Tax Appeal No.30 of 2016 before this Court. 3. However, having gone through the records, it is clear that the issue of said TDS credit of Rs.1,03,15,783/- was not considered by the Assessing Officer in reassessment. The same is also reflected in the order dated 11 November 2014 passed by CIT(Appeals) Exh. R-1. Thus the Petitioner's claim for grant of credit of the said TDS has not at all being considered for the Assessment year 2008-09 by any of the Authorities.

vinita 3 WP 665-17 dt6.8.18 4. In these circumstances, observations made in the impugned order to that extent may not be correct. As a result, we direct the Assessing Officer to take fresh decision in the matter with regard to the Petitioner's claim for grant of such TDS credit in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner would be at liberty to place the material before the Assessing Officer to justify its claim for the said TDS credit for the relevant Assessment Year 2008-09. While deciding the aforesaid Petitioner's claim, Assessing Officer shall not be influenced by the observations made by the CBDT. Decision as aforesaid be taken within a period of four months from the date of appearance before the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer on 28 August 2018 at 11.00 am 5. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. N.M. Jamdar, J. Shantanu S. Kemkar, J.

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →