PR COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) AAYAKAR BHAWAN V. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED PLOT NO.5 CHUNA BHATTI

WP/6727/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the deductions allowed under Section 80-IA (4) of the Income Tax Act to M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), challenged the Commission's decision, arguing that the deductions should not have been allowed as the tax returns were filed after the due date prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act. However, the court referenced a prior decision (W.P.No.21190/2015) where it had condoned the delay in filing returns, thus settling the issue in favor of the respondent. Additionally, the court found that the Settlement Commission had adequately addressed the respondent's involvement in infrastructure development, which justified the deductions claimed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728130 (HC-MADHYA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.21190/2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJEET SHRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY LAL
• Keywords: Deductions; Delay in Filing Returns; Income Tax; Infrastructure development; Settlement commission
• Section: 139(1); 80-IA(4)

Judgement Text

"THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 1 - Jabalpur, Dated : 10-07-2019 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. I.A.No.3498/2019 for recalling order dated 5.3.2019, is dismissed as not pressed, as the learned counsel for the respondent submits that he does not wish to press this application. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Revenue submits that the Settlement Commission has wrongly allowed deductions under Section 80-IA (4) of the Income T ax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) without taking into consideration the fact that the said claim for deduction could have been considered only in case the return of income had been filed on or before the due date specified under Section 139 (1) of the Act. It is submitted that as the returns were filed after the period prescribed by law, therefore, the claim for deduction could not have been allowed or considered by the Settlement Commission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the issue of filing of returns after the date prescribed by law was taken up by the respondent before this Court by filing W.P .No.21190/2015 and this Court by order dated 30.6.2016, allowed the petition setting aside the order passed by the Central Board of Direct T axes and condoned the delay on the part of the respondent in filing returns. Admittedly, the order passed by this Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P . No.21190/2015 has attained finality as the same has not been THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 2 - assailed or challenged by the petitioner before any higher Court. In such circumstances and in view of the order passed by this Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P . No.21190/2015, the issue regarding delay in filing the return does not survive and has been finally settled in favour of the respondent. In view of the order passed by this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Commission has wrongly allowed deductions under Section 80- IA (4) of the Act, without taking into consideration the aspect of delay, has no merit and does not survive for either being raised or adjudicated. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent was only involved in construction of roads as a contractor and, therefore, as he was only a works contractor, the benefit of the provisions relating to work undertaken for infrastructural development would not have been availed by the respondent and has wrongly been allowed by the Settlement Commission. From a perusal of the order, it is apparent that the Settlement Commission has discussed these aspects extensively in its order from paragraph 13 onwards and has recorded a finding in that regard in paragraph 13.4. The aforesaid finding in favour of the respondent, is a finding of fact and does not warrant any interference by this Court in writ proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed. (R. S. JHA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE pp. Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2019.07.15 13:19:10 +05'30' "