Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (4) TMI 1286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s payment of tax. The petitioner cannot be taxed twice on the same income. Ultimately, the purpose of exercising power under the Act is only intended to collect correct and just tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from an assessee. The Act is not intended either to collect or retain any amount which is not due from an assessee. The above passage squarely applies to the facts of the present case as the department has also not disputed the fact that the petitioner has settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for the assessment year 2011-12 as a consequence of which the tax offered and paid by the petitioner during the assessment year 2014-15 had become excess. That apart, under Section 237 under Chapter XIX of the Income Tax Act, there is no limitation prescribed for granting refund of the amount paid in excess as tax. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, these Writ Petitions deserves to be allowed. WP allowed. - W.P.Nos.16022, 16024, 16026 And 16029 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2022 - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of ₹ 1,20,08,628/- along with interest for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 payable by the petitioner or refund the same to the petitioner bearing PAN No.AAGCA9006R within a time period. 3. The respective petitioners had received amounts during the financial year 2010-2011 as advance. The amounts received as advance were not offered to tax by the respective petitioners. These petitioners were therefore taxed for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, appeals came to be filed by the respective petitioners which culminated in order of Appellate Commissioner for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 4. Meanwhile, the respective petitioners themselves treated the amounts as income during the financial year 2013-2014 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and offered the amounts for tax in their returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based on the aforesaid returns filed by the respective petitioners, the Assessments were completed for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on a protective basis and the net amount of tax was demanded along with interest under Sections 234A, 234B 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the respective petitioners. 5. Meanw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ITAT 03.12.2018 ITA.No.1611/Chny/2018 2011-2012 Order of this Court 25.01.2021 T.C.A.No.507 of 2019 2011-2012 W.P.No.160246 of 2021 Assessment order 31.03.2016 PAN No.AALCS4094A 2011-2012 31.03.2016 PAN No.AALCS4094A 2014-2015 Order of CIT (Appeals) 23.02.2018 I.T.A.No.221/16-17 2011-2012 Order of ITAT 03.12.2018 ITA.No.1610/Chny/2018 2011-2012 08.03.2019 ITA.No.1650/Chny/2018 2014-2015 Order of this Court 25.01.2021 T.C.A.No.512 of 2019 2011-2012 29.03.2021 T.C.A.No.49 of 2020 2014-2015 W.P.No.16029 of 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 39 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the returns cannot be revised in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). It is submitted that the petitioners had voluntarily offered to pay the tax for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and merely because the petitioners had to settle the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the previous year ipso facto would not justify either for passing of the order under 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or for consequently refunding the same to the respective petitioners. 12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 13. Question that arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled for an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the case of the petitioner having being settled under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and opted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and to consequently refund the tax paid by the respective petitioners alone with interest under Section 244A of the I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates