MS BALDEO SAHU AND SONS THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SANJAY KUMAR SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WPC/946/2021

AI Insights

The case involved M/s. Baldeo Sahu & Sons and M/s. Baldeo Sahu Shiv Prasad Sahu as petitioners, who were concerned about the acceptance of their application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Settlement Commission due to proposed amendments in the Finance Bill, 2021. The petitioners sought several declarations regarding the applicability of the current provisions of the Income Tax Act until the proposed amendments were enacted. However, during the proceedings, the petitioners' counsel informed the court that the Settlement Commission had been accepting applications, leading to the decision to withdraw the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724505 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV SINHA; VIKASH KUMAR; RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Keywords: Income Tax Act; Mandamus; Settlement commission; Withdrawal of Petition; Finance Bill 2021; Section 245C
• Section: 245C; 245B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 946 of 2021 1. M/s. Baldeo Sahu & Sons, Lohardaga, Jharkhand 2. M/s. Baldeo Sahu Shiv Prasad Sahu, Lohardaga, Jharkhand… Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India 2. The Chairperson, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi 3. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench Kolkata 4. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ranchi … Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-U.O.I : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI Mr. Vikash Kumar, C.G.C For the Respondent-Income Tax Department: Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate --- 02/18.03.2021 Writ petition was preferred for the following reliefs by the petitioner who bore an apprehension that application under Section 245C under Chapter- XXIX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not being accepted by the Settlement Commission in view of the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill, 2021 to Section 245B and 245C of the Act of 1961. “(i) For a DECLARATOIN that the Finance Bill 2021, introduced in the Parliament on 01/02/2021, which proposes to amend various provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 particularly Sections 245B and 245C, is yet to be passed and enacted by the Parliament and as such has not obtained the force of law as per the Constitution of India; (ii) For a DECLARATOIN that the proposed amendments contained in the Finance Bill 2021 until enacted by the Parliament as per the provisions of the Constitution of India, the present provisions related to Sections 245B and 245C of Income Tax Act, 1961 are the applicable and operational provisions of the said Act and are binding on the Respondents; (iii) For a DECLARATION that the proposed amendments contained in the Finance Bill 2021 until enacted by the Parliament as per the provisions of the Constitution of India, the proposed amendments to the provisions of Sections 245B and 245C of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. (iv) For a DECLARATION that the act of the Respondent authorities in refusing to accept the Petitioners’ applications under section 245C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for settlement of case before the Settlement Commission, is in direct violation of the Petitioners’ statutory rights under the Income Tax Act 1961 and fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (v) Consequent upon such declarations issue a writ of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondent authorities, Respondent No. 3 in particular, to accept/receive the Petitioners’ Applications under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (vi) For issuance of a writ of and/or in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding upon all the Respondents to immediately and forthwith, produce all communications/records and documents relating to the instant petition before this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may be administered after perusal of the same; 2. (vii) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above; (viii) Such other writ/orders and/or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Settlement Commission has been accepting applications. He, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the writ application with a liberty that in case fresh cause of action arise, he may approach the Forum / Court. Learned counsel for the respondents do not object to the prayer for withdrawal. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is upto the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the competent forum, if permissible in law. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Jk "