9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Delhi High Court in the case of Medeor Hospital Limited v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2022 (11) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and Tushar Agro Chemical [ 2021 (7) TMI 1267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] have held that CBDT cannot issue circulars adverse to the assessee. For the reasons aforesaid we hold that the FAQ 61 of the circular 21/2020 dated 4th December 2020 issued by the CBDT to the extent that it restricts appeals to the ones dismissed in limine are not only adverse to the interest of the assessee but also contrary to the object and reasons of DTVSV-A. ORDER: FAQ No. 61 of the Circular 21 of 2020 issued by the Respondent no. 1 is struck down. The impugned rejection order dated 3rd August 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue acknowledgment in Form 3 against the application made by the Petitioner in Form 1 and Form 2. - WRIT PETITION NO. 6228 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2023 - DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanket Bora a/w. Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/by SPCM Legal. For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar. JUDGMENT [PER: KAMAL KHATA, J.] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the Petitioner from ₹ 1,78,77,487/- to ₹ 50,58,159/-. The DCIT passed an order dated 27th September 2019 giving effect to the ITAT order dated 14th May 2019. 4. After receiving the DCIT s order (dated 27th September 2019) on 25th November 2019, the Petitioner sought an amendment in the order from the DCIT for considering the computation of tax on the profit embedded. The Petitioner also preferred an MA dated 6th August 2019 (MA-2 for short) u/s 254 (2) for adjudication of ground 4 which yet again remained undecided by the ITAT by its order dated 14th May 2019. This MA-2 which was pending adjudication on the date the Petition was filed. 5. On 17th March 2020 the DTVSV-A was introduced and on 30th January 2021 the Petitioner made an application to avail the benefit. This application was rejected by an order dated 3rd August 2021 on the basis of FAQ No. 61 of Circular No. 21 of 2020 stating that this case is not eligible under DTVSV-A. 6. This Petition filed on 17th September 2021 seeks to challenge the impugned order of rejection dated 3rd August 2021. 7. Mr. Sanket Bora learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the MA-2 ought to be construed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other was not. 10. Another contention advanced was that the Order dated 14th May 2019 on MA-1 merged with the Order dated 20th May 2016 and was appealable u/s 260A of the Act. Consequently, would fall under the category envisaged by DTVSV-A. 11. Per Contra, Mr. Kumar for the Respondent contented that the Appeal was dismissed on merits on 20th May 2016 and in law the MA-2 as filed was not permissible and though pending was liable be rejected. He further argued that the FAQ No. 61 was applicable for Appeals dismissed in limine only. He further contended that such classification is not disadvantageous to other classes of taxpayers and there is no unjust or arbitrary discrimination. He submitted that the circular has a rational nexus and did not want the beneficial legislation to be misused by those whose appeals were adjudicated. Consequently the case of the Petitioner was beyond the purview of the DTVSV-A. CONCLUSION: 12. We heard both counsel. The Order dated 3rd August 2021 rejecting the application is as under: 04. The assessee has applied for DTVSV scheme 2020 against the 2nd MA filed against the dismissed appeal. On perusal of the Order of the honourable I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. With regard to the condition in answer to FAQ 61, viz. Appeal dismissed in limine we are of the view that the qualifying words in limine that apparently restrict the eligible assessees for availing settlement under the DTVSV, are contrary to its object and reasons. The Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank, Calcutta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, W. B. 1999 4 SCC 599 , has held while interpreting Section 119 of the Act, as under:- 9. Xxx xxx xxx Under sub-section (2) of Section 119, without prejudice to the generality of the Board s power set out in sub-section (1), specific power is given to the board for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue to issue from time to time general for special orders in respect of any class of incomes or class of cases setting forth directions or instructions not being prejudicial to the assessees as the guidelines, principles procedures to be followed in the work relating to assessment. Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Council in Sayad Mir Ujmuddin Khan v. Ziaulnisa Begum 1879 ILR 3 Bom 422 , the Hon'ble Justice Sir James Colville has stated as to how in construing a remedial statute, a Court ought to give to it the widest operation which its language will permit. They have only to see that the particular case is within the mischief to be remedied and falls within the language of the enactment. Again in, Gover's Re, Coal Economising Gas Co., 1875 (1) Ch D 182 , it was held that the words of such a statute must be so construed as to give the most complete remedy which the phraseology will permit . The said ratio was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the Judgment International Ore and Fertilizers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1987 (4) SCC 203 , by stating that in the field of labour and welfare legislation, the provisions have to be broadly and liberally construed . 20. In our view, it would be appropriate that the ratio laid down in the above cases with regard to construing a remedial statute be followed in the present case in as much as DTVSV-A is a beneficial statute. 21. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
