9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Double taxation relief application rejected by income-tax authorities. 2. Delay in approaching the court for relief against rejection of application. 3. Challenge to rejection of application for grant of set-off. 4. Interpretation of Section 49E of the Income-tax Act for set-off. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a public limited company, sought relief against double taxation as it was taxed in Ceylon and Indian states for the same income in different assessment years. The income-tax authorities rejected the application for relief, citing time limitations. The petitioner pursued revision and appeals up to the Central Board of Revenue, all resulting in rejection of the claim. 2. The petitioner also faced rejection of a similar relief application for income earned in Kolhapur and Kapurthala states. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for arrears of income tax. The petitioner then requested a set-off of refunds due against the tax payable. However, the first respondent and the Central Board of Revenue rejected this application, leading the petitioner to approach the court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. 3. The court addressed the preliminary objection of delay raised by the respondents. The petitioner had approached the court nearly two years after the rejection of the refund application, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court emphasized the need for due diligence in approaching the court for extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 4. The petitioner argued that the challenge was against the rejection of the application for grant of set-off, not the refund application rejection. However, the court noted that the essence of the challenge was the rejection of refunds by the income-tax authorities. Even if the challenge was specific to the set-off application rejection, the delay in approaching the court without exhausting statutory remedies was deemed unjustified. 5. On the merits, the court analyzed Section 49E of the Income-tax Act, which allows set-off of refunds against tax payable. The court highlighted that for set-off, an adjudication must establish a refund due to the claimant. As no such adjudication existed in favor of the petitioner, the provisions of Section 49E did not apply. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petitioner's case. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, citing delay in approaching the court, lack of statutory remedies exhaustion, and absence of adjudication for refund as reasons for the dismissal. The court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the petitioner's case regarding the application for double taxation relief and set-off of refunds against tax payable.
|
