9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application as invalid is thus set aside and the Settlement Commission is directed to take the matter up for hearing on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. - Writ Petition No.33881 of 2018, WMP.No.39345 & 39346 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2020 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran for Mr.R.Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas- SSC ORDER The order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (in short 'SC' or Commission) dated 11.12.2018 is assailed in the present writ petition. 2. The Commission has rejected the application of the petitioner for assessment years (AY) 2011-12 to 2017-18 as 'invalid', since the payment of additional taxes is a primary condition for maintainability of the application. The report of the Commissioner under Rule 2(B) had pointed out that there was a short payment of tax, amounting to ₹ 4,58,772/- for AY 2015-16, ₹ 3,52,780/- for AY 2013-14 and ₹ 7,84,966/- for A Y 2016-17. 3. There have been a significant number of hearings in this matter and both the petitioner and the revenue have filed their versions of the pending arrears fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(1) due to wrong quoting of TAN by the assessee in the return of income in respect of M/s Landmark housing Projects Chennai Private Limited to the extent of ₹ 4,26,712. Now on verificaition of the assessee's claim made regarding wrong quoting of TAN vide the application u/s 154 with reference to the 26AS statement, the claim of the assessee is found to be in order. But the order u/s 154 could not be passed on ITBA System due to the technical issue that the bigger proceedings alrady initiated u/s 153A are pending as on date. When tried to pass the order u/s 154, the ITBA system did not enable to do so. In other words, additional TDS credit to the extent of ₹ 4,26,712 is now available to the credit of the assessee and if the same is considered the demand for A Y 2015-16 will get reduced to Rs. Nil. AY 2016-17 Contention of the Department in Counter Affidavit Petitioner in WP had submitted that the difference in 143(1) due to TDS mismatch being ₹ 7,84,960/- was duly considered by petitioner itself in computing taxes to be paid before ITSC. No specific comments in ounter affidavit on differenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 2,34,972/- was available to the Petitioner as on date of filing settlement application. Thus, along with its interest impact u/s.234B the short fall becomes NIL as on the date of filing settlement application Revised computation of income considering additional TDS credit of ₹ 2,34,972/- is submitted in S.No.6 of the Additional Type Set. Original computation of Income submitted before ITSC is enclosed in S.No.5 of the Additional Tupe Set. As can be seen if additional TDS credit of ₹ 2,34,972/- is considered, taxes payable reduces by ₹ 3,31,281/- for A.Y.2016-17 which would set off the demand of ₹ 3,52,780/- for A.Y.2013-14 when considered along with refund already due as per settlement application of ₹ 1,10,796/-. C) No shortfall as on date of filing settlement application if interest u/s234B is correctly computed Interest u/s.234B for A.Y.2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 ought to have been calculated only until such date of adjustment of excess tax for A.Y.2015-16 (taxes for A.Y.2015-16 and in March 2018 and May 2018 itself) and not till the date of filing application before ITSC i.e., October 2018. on recalculating interest u/s234B i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch and May 2018 is allowed to adjusted against taxes payable for other years only in October 2018, then u/s 244A interest is to be allowed for taxes paid in March and May 2018 till October 2018. Hence there would be no shortfall as on date of filing settlement application if interest u/s244A is considered (Rdf.Pg.38-40 in S.No.3 Additional Type Set). Claim of petition is allowable u/s 244A. Either 234B has to be reduced or 244A ought to be allowed to the petitioner in this regard Department cannot have huge amount due to the assessee and also claim thre is shortfall in payment of taxes as on date of filing settlement application. F) Without prejudice decision in the case of Dr.Prathap Reddy V. ITSC other in W.P.No.5333 of 2018 was not properly appreciated by ITSC. No specific comments in this regard in counter affidavit Self-assessment tax of ₹ 7.5 lakhs paid by assessee on 18.11.2018 even before receipt of report u/s245D(2B) on 27.11.2018. G) Without prejudice, Petitioner eligible for refund of ₹ 3,15,344/- pertaining to A.Y.2006-07 and refund of ₹ 17,42,099/- for A.Y.2010-11 which is also available for adjustment against demand for A.Y.2013-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,780 due for the AY 2013-14. 6. Thus, the admitted position is that there is no shortfall as on date as confirmed by the officer, even though there was a shortfall, according to the Department, as on date of application before the SC. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am of the view that this is not a case where the assessee has consciously short-paid admitted tax. There are computational differences that exist that could well be the reason for the remittances falling short of the required amounts. This is apparent from the contentions of the assessee/petitioner and revenue extracted above. In addition, the differences are quite insignificant in the context of the entirety of the payments made. I am thus of the view that in the interests of substantial justice the petitioners' case should be considered on merits by the Commission. The impugned order treating the application as invalid is thus set aside and the Settlement Commission is directed to take the matter up for hearing on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 7. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
