ABHISHEK BHALOTIA V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WPC/835/2021

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by RSB Industries Ltd. and Abhishek Bhalotia against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2021 that aimed to abolish the Income Tax Settlement Commission effective from February 1, 2021. The petitioners were concerned that their applications for settlement under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be accepted by the Settlement Commission due to this proposed amendment. The court noted that similar interim orders had been passed by other High Courts under comparable circumstances. Subsequently, the petitioners filed their applications with the Settlement Commission, which were accepted along with the requisite fees. Consequently, the court found that the petitioners' grievances had been addressed and thus disposed of the petitions without delving into the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685897 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Telengana High Court, Rajasthan High Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV SINHA; NEERAJ KUMAR; RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUL ROHATGI; N K PASARI; SIDHI JALAN
• Keywords: Finance Bill 2021; Income tax settlement commission; Settlement application; Section 245 Amendment; Presidential Assent
• Section: 245C(1); 245; 245C(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 832 of 2021 RSB Industries Ltd. having its registered office at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand through its Director Suvendra Kumar Behera R/o of Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum --- --- Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 3.Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata --- --- Respondents With W.P.(T) No. 835 of 2021 Abhishek Bhalotia R/o Bistupur, East Singhbhum --- --- Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 3.Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata --- --- Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioners : M/s Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., N.K.Pasari and Sidhi Jalan, Advocates For the Respondent s : M/s Rajiv Sinha, ASGI, Neeraj Kumar, Adv. ( for UOI) : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate (for Respondent no.2) 03/10.03.2021 Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mukul Rohatgi assisted by Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari; respondent Union of India through Mr. Neeraj Kumar, A.C. to learned A.S.G.I and Mr. Rahul Lamba for the respondent Department. 2. Both the writ petitions were preferred seeking same relief inter alia for declaring that the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2021 regarding amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where under the Income Tax Settlement Commission is proposed to be abolished w.e.f. 01.02.2021, cannot be acted upon without being notified in the official gazette and without receiving the Presidential assent. Petitioners apprehend that the application for settlement under Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act would not be accepted by the Settlement Commission denying lawful recourse to the petitioners to avail the remedy thereunder. 3. When the matter was taken up on 04.03.2021 it was brought to the Court’s notice that in the similar circumstances, interim order has been -2- passed by the Telengana High Court at Annexure-4 series in W.P.(T) No. 832 of 2021, an order of the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2192 of 2021 asking the Settlement Commission to accept the application made by the assesse. However, it appeared from the averments made in the writ petitions that no such application has been filed before the Settlement Commissioner by the petitioners. In those circumstances, petitioners took time to make an effort to file such application before the Settlement Commission and file an affidavit to that effect. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in both writ petitions thereafter, soft copy of which has been sent through email and hard copy has been put in the drop box yesterday. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits by referring to the contents of the supplementary affidavit dated 08.03.2021 that application under section 245C(1) of the Act of 1961 was submitted by the petitioners before the learned Settlement Commissioner and the same has been received by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Kolkata vide Annexure SA/1 & 2. It is further stated that as mandated under Section 245 C (2) petitioners have also deposited an amount of Rs.500/- by way of application fee with the Settlement Commission. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that part of the grievance of the petitioners have been satisfied to the extent that applications have been formally received by the Settlement Commission. It is submitted that the Settlement Commission may be directed to proceed with the settlement applications of the petitioners in consonance with the provisions of Chapter XIX-A which continue to remain on the statute book and as a part of the Income Tax Act, 1961 till such time the Finance Bill, 2021 is enacted into law. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the limited canvass of facts and the grievances raised by the petitioners. As it appears, the writ petitions were preferred with an apprehension that applications of the petitioners would not be accepted by the Settlement Commission in view of the proposed amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, as per the statement made in the supplementary affidavit, applications of the petitioners have been accepted and requisite fees has been deposited through challan, -3- copy of which are enclosed to the supplementary affidavit. In these circumstances, petitioners’ grievance, though raised prematurely before this Court, appears to have been redressed. Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with powers and procedure of Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission may consider it in accordance with law. 7. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, nor made any observations in this regard. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty "