M/s Sudisa Enterprises Private Limited V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

WPC/1379/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Sudisa Enterprises Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax authorities concerning the delay and subsequent actions related to their application for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that their application was pending for more than a month without any order, which should be deemed as acceptance according to Section 270AA(4). Additionally, they contested an order and show cause notice issued under Sections 274 and 270A, respectively, claiming these were issued after the mandatory period and misinterpreted the provisions of the Act. However, the petitioner decided to withdraw the writ petition to pursue an appeal, which the court allowed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672313 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PASARI
• Keywords: Application pending; Assessment Year 2019-20; Immunity from penalty; Quashing of order
• Section: 274; 270A; 270AA(1); 270AA(4)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 1379 of 2022 M/s SUDISA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED having its office at Adityapur, Town-Jamshedpur through its Authorized Signatory Shri Sumit Kumar Agarwal R/o Adityapur, Seraikella Kharsawan -- --- Petitioner Versus 1.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 3.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum --- --- Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : M/s Nitin Kr. Pasari, Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate 03/21.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: a. “For issuance of an appropriate writ and / or order and / or direction directing upon the Respondent No.2 to show cause as to how the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 270AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for grant of immunity from penalty could be kept pending, for more than a month. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ and / or order and / or direction holding and declaring that once an application is made under Section 270 AA(1) of the Act, seeking Immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution, if no order is passed within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the date of the application is made, then in that event, it is deemed acceptance of the application and no further order can be passed after the expiry of said period of one month in terms of Section 270 AA(4) of the Act. c. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing / setting aside the impugned Order dated 15.03.2022, passed by the learned Assessing Officer (Annexure-8), since having been passed after the expiry of mandatory period under the Act and otherwise also, on a misinterpretation of the provisions as contained in Section 270 AA(1)(a) of the Act, the same has been wrongly dismissed. d. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-9), issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act be quashed and set aside.” 3. I.A. No. 3950 of 2022 has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 01.04.2022 passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during pendency of the writ petitions, by which penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The writ petition relates to the assessment year 2019-20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition in order to avail of the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. He submits that since the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the statutory authority may be -2- directed to consider the question of limitation sympathetically. 4. Learned counsel for the Income Tax department does not have any objection to the prayer. 5. In view of the request made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It is open for the petitioner to pursue his grievances before the statutory authority as is permissible in law. Needless to say, the statutory authority may take into account the aforesaid fact while considering the question of limitation. I.A. No. 3950 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) A.Mohanty "