S. K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22 (2)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6488/2020HC DelhiDLHC01025117202016 September 2020Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court noted that the petitioner's rectification applications dated November 10, 2015, and May 6, 2019, filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the same issue, were pending adjudication before the respondent. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent (ACIT Circle 22(2)) to decide the pending rectification applications within four weeks from the date of the order. The decision was to be rendered by way of a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties were left open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the credit for prepaid taxes or the consequential interest.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, S.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2007-2008. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to grant credit for prepaid taxes amounting to Rs. 49,92,312/- while passing the Section 143(1) order, which resulted in an additional demand of Rs. 63,17,810/-. Although the petitioner stated that credit for these prepaid taxes was allowed in a subsequent order under Section 143(3), the Section 143(1) order was not amended to reflect this credit or to delete the interest charged under Section 234B on the uncredited amount. The petitioner had filed two rectification applications under Section 154 of the Act on November 10, 2015, and May 6, 2019, which were pending adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent-AO erred in not granting credit for prepaid taxes amounting to Rs. 49,92,312/- while passing the order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2007-2008, leading to an additional demand of Rs. 63,17,810/-. The petitioner argued that this omission resulted in an incorrect demand and the subsequent charging of interest under Section 234B. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the respondent-AO failed to amend the order under Section 143(1) to grant credit for prepaid taxes and delete the consequential interest under Section 234B, despite such credit being allowed under Section 143(3). The petitioner contended that the pending rectification applications under Section 154 should be decided expeditiously. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 234B,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 6488/2020

Page 1 of 2

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 6488/2020

S.K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

...... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mukesh Chand, Advocate.

versus

ACIT CIRCLE 22(2)

...... Respondent Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate.

Date of Decision: 16th September, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking amendment of the order dated 06th March, 2009 passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2007-2008 which has led to an additional demand of Rs.63,17,810/-. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not give credit of prepaid taxes amounting to Rs.49,92,312/- while passing the order under Section 143(1) of the Act.

W.P. (C) 6488/2020

Page 2 of 2

4.

Though learned counsel for petitioner states that while passing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, respondent allowed the credit for prepaid taxes amounting to Rs.49,92,312/-, yet the respondent did not amend the order under Section 143(1) of the Act by giving credit of prepaid taxes amounting to Rs.49,92,312/- as well as by deleting the interest charged on the said amount under Section 234B of the Act. 5. Issue notice. 6. Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 7. After some arguments, it transpires that the petitioner’s rectification applications dated 10th November, 2015 and 06th May, 2019 under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue are pending adjudication before the respondent. 8. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the aforesaid rectification applications within four weeks by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 KA

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →