TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be passed on 25.08.2022, which was communicated to the petitioner only on 22.11.2022 via email sent by CBDT/respondent no.1. Therefore, had the CBDT/respondent no.1 immediately responded to the petitioner s application dated 25.03.2022 for extension of time, the intervening delay between March 2022 and today would not have occurred. If we were to take into account this aspect of the matter, one would have acknowledge that in certain circumstances, coordinate benches of this court have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and granted relief to those assessees who wanted to avail the beneficial provisions of DVSV Act. The overall conduct of the petitioner in this case, in the very least, shows that it had made subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. with Mr Divyanshu Agarwal, Adv. Respondents Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. Issue notice. 1.1. Mr Sunil Agarwal, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 2. Mr Agarwal says that no formal counter-affidavit is required to be filed and he will rely on the record which is presently available with the court. Having regard to the fact that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows: a) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imposition of tax as well as penalty. The Tribunal via order dated 24.01.2013 remanded the matter to the CIT(A). 4.6. In the interregnum, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishvas Act 2020 [in short DVSV Act ] was brought into force. The petitioner, thus, decided to take benefit of the provisions of DVSV Act. Accordingly, as required under the DVSV Act, the petitioner filed its declarations, as mandated, in Form 1 2 on 29.12.2020. 4.7. The petitioner avers that even before filing the declarations in Form 1 and 2, it had paid tax amounting to Rs 9 lakh. According to the petitioner, it has now to deposit only the balance amount i.e., Rs 1,09,800/-; which it would upon receiving intimation in the Form No. 3 from the respondents. 4.8. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uitless journey, which is, approaching the CBDT i.e. respondent no. 1. An application was, thus, preferred with the CBDT/respondent no. 1 on 25.03.2022, seeking extension of time for allowing the petitioner to deposit the balance tax as quantified in Form No. 3 i.e., Rs 1,09,800/-. 4.14. Since the petitioner did not receive response from the CBDT/respondent no. 1, a reminder was sent on 04.11.2022. According to the petitioner, CBDT/respondent no. 1 via email dated 22.11.2022 sent the petitioner the impugned communication dated 25.08.2022, indicating that the timeline prescribed under the DVSV Act having expired, it was not possible to grant any extension. Furthermore, CBDT/respondent no. 1, once again, in our opinion, rightly, concluded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax-4. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts, as alluded to above, are not in dispute. 9.1. The facts and circumstances detailed out above by us, disclose that the petitioner became aware of the intimation given by the respondent no. 2 via Form No. 3, requiring it to deposit Rs 1,09,800/- by 31.03.2021, only on 11.03.2022. 10. As submitted by Ms Bansal, the mistake, if any, was made by the Chartered Accountant who was not vigilant in accessing the information which was available on the petitioner s portal albeit, via his Login ID and Password. 11. We find some justification in the submission espoused on behalf of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made substantial compliance, inasmuch as a major portion of the tax i.e., Rs 9 lakh was deposited even before the declarations were filed via Form Nos. 1 and 2. 19. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 passed by CBDT/respondent no. 1, not on the ground that they were wrong in concluding that powers for extension of time cannot be exercised under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but for the reason that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as in the other cases, is inclined to exercise its powers to enable the petitioner to pay the balance tax. 19.1. Therefore, paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
