9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 158 - HC - Income TaxApplication for rectification u/s 154 rejected - rectification of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) seeked - Held that - The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 22 has filed an affidavit from which it is clear that he has taken stock of the facts arising in this Petition. The affidavit very fairly states that in view of the order of the CIT(Appeal) along with the material available on record, it is clear that the AO ought to have allowed the rectification application in respect of Assessment Year 1997-98. Commissioner of Income Tax has in his affidavit assured us that the issue would be resolved promptly and the refund along with interest thereon in accordance with the provisions of law, shall be granted to the Petitioner-Assesssee, preferably within the period of six weeks from today. The affidavit also record the regret on the part of the Revenue for the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner - Assesse. Rectification to be allowed.
Issues:
Challenges to orders rejecting rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 1997-98. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertained to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a senior citizen aged 82 years. The petition challenged the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, which rejected the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had initially sought rectification of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 1997-98. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastav, filed an affidavit on 19th April, 2018, acknowledging the facts of the case. The affidavit clearly stated that the Assessing Officer should have allowed the rectification application for Assessment Year 1997-98 based on the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)'s order and the available material on record. The Commissioner assured that the issue would be promptly resolved, and the refund with interest would be granted to the petitioner within six weeks. The High Court, in view of the above, quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017. The judges expressed their appreciation for the proactive and sensitive intervention of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mr. Sachchidanand Srivastava, in ensuring that the injustice caused to the petitioner was addressed. They commended his gesture of acknowledging the inconvenience caused and expressed regret on behalf of the Revenue department. The judges highlighted the importance of fairness in dealings between the tax department and the taxpayer, emphasizing that such conduct fosters greater compliance with tax laws. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition in the terms mentioned and directed the Registry to serve a copy of the order on the Central Board of Direct Taxes in New Delhi. The judgment did not impose any costs on the parties involved. In summary, the High Court of Bombay's judgment addressed the issues related to the rejection of a rectification application under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 1997-98. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair and sensitive dealings between tax authorities and taxpayers, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution of grievances to ensure justice and compliance with tax laws.
|
