Calcutta High Court Judgments — 2020

The Tribunal erred in not excluding the period between the date of the order and the date of its service on the assessee when computing the limitation period for a rectification application. Section 268 of the Income Tax Act mandates the exclusion of this time.

The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.

The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.

The High Court observed that the rectification application was made by the petitioner prior to June 2020. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 (Income Tax Officer) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Following the hearing, the officer is to pass a reasoned order with regard to the rectification application within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of on these directions. Since no affidavits were exchanged, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted by the respondents.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the tax effect of the remaining issues being below the monetary limit for appeals, and the Revenue's admission that earlier questions were decided against them in prior proceedings.

The High Court at Calcutta, considering the averments made in paragraph 22 of the petition, disposed of the appeal (ITA No.18 of 2015) and the connected applications (GA No.2 of 2019, GA No. 2722 of 2019). The court granted prayer (a) of the petition. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission that the Resolution Plan had been sanctioned and approved, and consequently, no taxes were due, thus rendering the continuation of the appeal unnecessary. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and applications as per the prayer.

The High Court held that neither the Revenue Authority nor the petitioner could act during the period prescribed by the Notification S.O. 4455(E) dated December 13, 2019, without the leave of the Court. The Court found that the petitioner's prayer for extension of time deserved to be attended to by the Revenue Authority under the said Notification, as his prayer was live and pending during the notification's subsistence, entitling him to retrospective consideration. Consequently, the issue was remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the matter on merits in light of the Court's observations. The Court directed that this exercise should be completed within six weeks from the communication of the order. The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.

The High Court observed that serious allegations bordering on misconduct were made by the petitioner against the assessing officer. Given these allegations and the disputed facts, the Court deemed it appropriate for the matter to be dealt with by the statutory appellate authority. Therefore, the Court granted the petitioner leave to file a statutory appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act within 30 days. The impugned order was stayed for 30 days. The appellate authority was directed to accept the appeal in physical form and, if necessary, investigate the revenue's contention regarding the petitioner using two PAN numbers illegally, leading to dues of Rs. 9 Crore. All issues were kept open for agitation before the appellate authority.