Scribd
Upload
14 views3 pages

Versus: 2024:BHC-AS:12456-DB

The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioner, Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi, regarding the assessment order dated March 31, 2022, which was quashed due to improper consideration of advance and self-assessment tax payments. The court mandated that the respondents issue Form 4 under the Income Declaration Scheme, giving credit for all amounts paid by the petitioner. The decision emphasizes the need for proper crediting of taxes paid in previous assessment years.

Uploaded by

satwik jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views3 pages

Versus: 2024:BHC-AS:12456-DB

The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioner, Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi, regarding the assessment order dated March 31, 2022, which was quashed due to improper consideration of advance and self-assessment tax payments. The court mandated that the respondents issue Form 4 under the Income Declaration Scheme, giving credit for all amounts paid by the petitioner. The decision emphasizes the need for proper crediting of taxes paid in previous assessment years.

Uploaded by

satwik jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

2024:BHC-AS:12456-DB

1/3 447-aswp-5134-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5134 OF 2022

Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi …Petitioner


Versus
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2,
Pune & Ors. …Respondents

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, with Mr. Rohan Deshpande, i/b. Ms.


Farzeen Khambatta, for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondent-Revenue.

CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM &


DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED: 12th March, 2024
PC:-
1. Petitioner had filed return of income (“ROI”) on 27th March

2018 for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring an income of

Rs.8,36,800/-. Petitioner had received notice dated 31 st March 2021

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). According

to the reason for reopening the assessment, the total tax liability of

Rs.26,05,390/- was payable on declared income of Rs.57,89,755/- in

the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (“IDS”). Petitioner was called

to discharge the total liability by 31 st January 2020. Petitioner paid

only Rs.2,40,000/- on 22nd March 2018 and, therefore, Petitioner was

called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.23,56,390/-.

2. It is Petitioner’s case that if the advance tax and self assessment

tax that Petitioner had paid for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15

Shivgan
2/3 447-aswp-5134-2022.doc

together with the payments made for AY 2017-18 under the IDS are

considered, Petitioner would have paid a total amount of

Rs.26,74,784/- which was in excess of the liability determined under

the IDS. Petitioner was informed that advance tax and self

assessment tax paid by Petitioner could not be adjusted against the

liability under the IDS. Therefore, this Petition was filed.

3. An affidavit in reply of one Aparna M Aggarwal, Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune, affirmed on 5 th May 2022 is

filed. In the said affidavit, Respondents have agreed to give credit to

a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- that Petitioner had paid as advance tax. With

regard to self assessment tax of Rs.15,78,210/- paid for AY 2013-14,

it is stated that the legal opinion of the standing counsel has been

sought in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kumudam

Publications (P) Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxation 1 and since it

was a policy matter and opinion is yet to be received, input from the

CBDT is also being sought. One thing is clear that Respondents are

not averse to giving credit for the self assessment tax, but they

wanted somebody to tell them to go ahead and give credit. In our

view, credit for the self assessment tax of Rs.15,78,210/- paid for AY

2013-14 has to be given. Mr. Suresh Kumar states, his information is

that the Board has expressed an opinion that credit for self

assessment tax paid cannot be given. In our view, any amount paid by

1 (2017) 393 ITR 599.


Shivgan
3/3 447-aswp-5134-2022.doc

Petitioner for those relevant Assessment Years, credit has to be given

and we find support for this view in judgments of this Court in Kamla

Chandra Singh Kabali v. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax-27 &

Ors.,2 and CEAT Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax.3

4. Therefore, the assessment order dated 31 st March 2022 has to

be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently,

demand notice dated 31st March 2022 and penalty notice also dated

31st March 2022 are also quashed and set aside.

5. Respondents shall issue Form 4 under the IDS within four

weeks from today after giving credit to all amounts paid including

the advance tax and self assessment tax.

6. Petition disposed.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

2 2022 (137) taxmann.com 346 (Bombay).


Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad 3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 557
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Shivgan
Date: 15/03/2024 12:52:20

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy