9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t one of them should be authorised by way of Power of Attorney to handle all the tax affairs of Kalyanji Bhagat as there has been search operation conducted against Kalyanji Bhagat under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). There were other proceedings also pending. 3. Suresh Bhagat who was solely handling the tax affairs of late Kalyanji Bhagat expired in the year 2008. It is stated that thereafter nobody was really looking into the affairs. When the DTVSV Act came into force, the family of Kalyanji Bhagat decided to take advantage of the scheme under the DTVSV Act. 4. Petitioner took charge of the affairs and after obtaining certified copy of the orders passed for the assessment years mentioned in paragraph no.1 above against late Kalyanji Bhagat, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). 5. Mr. Jetly submitted that petitioner filed declaration in Form 1 under the DTVSV Act for each assessment year separately. Respondent did not issue him Form 3 but instead addressed an E-mail dated 9th April, 2021 giving year wise reasons for rejection of petitioner's applications. A copy of the said E-mail is annexed to the petitions and is impugned in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this provision are (a) an order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on or before the specified date and (b) the time for filing any appeal against such order by that person has not expired on that date. The specified date, Mr. Jetly submitted, under clause (n) of Sub Section (1) of Section (2) of the DTVSV Act was 31st January, 2020 and all the orders were passed in 2011 and therefore the first condition has been met. As regards the second condition, Mr. Jetly submitted that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be filed within 60 days of the conclusion of the appeal. According to Mr. Jetly the order was communicated to petitioner only on 17th December, 2020 and the time to file the appeals was to expire on or about 15th February, 2021 and the declarations were filed on or about 13th January, 2021. Therefore, second condition has also been met. 11. Mr. Sharma submitted that one Tanuja Bhagat on behalf of deceased Kalyanji Bhagat had applied under the provisions of the Right To Information Act, 2005 for copies of these orders for the assessment years mentioned above and these were provided some time in circa 2017. Therefore, petitioner's co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 to hear petitioner's appeal filed under Rule 86 Schedule II of the Act. It is also averred in the petition that during the course of hearing of these appeals Respondent No.2 initiated some actions including reference to valuation cell, constitution of Task Force to determine the correct amount of tax arrears of the deceased assessee etc. Due to change in jurisdiction, these appeals are pending before Respondent No.2 even as on the date of filing of the petition. As the Revenue Authorities were not having complete records including assessment order, notice of demand issued against deceased Kalyanji Bhagat etc., Task Force appointed by Respondent No.2 after co-ordinating with various wards/ offices of the Income Tax Department tried to ascertain the correct tax liability of the deceased Kalyanji Bhagat in the course of the proceedings. Petitioner states that while co-ordinating with the Task Force constituted, some time in the year 2019, petitioner, for the first time, learnt that CIT (A)- 29, Mumbai had passed ex parte appellate orders in 2011. 15. In the meanwhile, after two petitions referred above were disposed by this court in February/March, 2018, petitioner requested the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Mr. Sharma submitted that nothing prevented petitioner from applying for certified copies of all the documents in 2017 itself and the court therefore should not accept Mr. Jetly's submissions. 18. We have considered the affidavit in reply as well in which the submissions is based primarily in the lines submitted by Mr. Sharma. In the reply, Revenue is not denying the fact that the task force was created on two occasions and notwithstanding the appointment of task force, petitioner's were not able to get documents on time because of various organisational changes in the department. In the reply it is stated that in the absence of any material or documents in the Writ Petition, no credence could be given to the averment that the Task Force apparently constituted in the course of recovery proceedings appointed by Respondent No.2 could not provide a copy of the order passed by CIT (A) in September, 2011. Certainly, if only the affiant had gone through the files, he would have noted the notings in the file and he could have filed copy of the notings or the order sheets in the file, if according to him petitioner's averment in the petition was not correct. Respondents cannot simply s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
