S B B J V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/3917/2017

AI Insights

The case involves the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur challenging an order that required them to pay the entire assessed amount ignoring a CBDT Office Memorandum which stipulates that only 15% of the assessed/addition should be paid pending CIT (Appeals). The petitioner argued that the assessing officer did not consider the relevant para of the Office Memorandum which allows for a lower payment if similar additions were deleted in previous years or if there were favorable judgments from higher courts. The court agreed to remand the matter back to the assessing authority to reconsider the application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, taking into account the Office Memorandum and any relevant judicial precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750958 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL SIMLOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHANWAR; PRAKUL KHURANA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; CBDT Office Memorandum; Income Tax; Administrative Principal CIT/CIT
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3917 / 2017 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur Through Rajiv Kumar S/o Kedar Nath Roy, (Chief Manager-Taxation), Aged About 41 Years ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,, Circle 6, Jaipur 2. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals),, Jaipur-II ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr.Prakul Khurana For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nikhil Simlote for Mr.RB Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment 19/05/2017 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 06th March, 2017, whereby, the application under Section 220(6) Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act of 1961”) has been decided. The petitioner Bank has been directed to pay entire amount, as assessed ignoring the Office Memorandum of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 29th February, 2016. As per the Office Memorandum, one is not required to pay more than 15 per cent of the assessed/addition pending CIT (Appeals). (2 of 3) [CW-3917/2017] Para 4(B)(b) of the Office Memorandum provides that if the assessing officer is of the view that nature of the addition resulting in the disputed amount is such that payment of lump sum amount should be lower than 15 per cent in view of deletion of amount by the Appellate Authority in the earlier assessment years or a judgment of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee, the assessing officer would refer the matter to the Administrative Principal CIT/CIT, who would consider all the relevant facts and decide the quantum/proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee. The aforesaid para was not considered by the assessing authority while passing the order on an application under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the matter may be remanded to the assessing authority to pass an appropriate order after taking note of the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 and, therein, the parties may refer the documents either to show that similar additions were confirmed earlier in the appeals or there exists judgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court and, at the same time, the assessee may refer the order that similar additions have been deleted by the Appellate Authority or there is a judgment of the Supreme Court or of the High Court. After considering the rival submissions and taking reference of the orders relied by the parties, the assessing authority would pass a fresh order on the application under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961. If it is found that the petitioner bank’s case is covered by Para 4(B)(b) of the Office Memorandum (3 of 3) [CW-3917/2017] of CBDT dated 29th February, 2016 then the matter would appropriately be referred to the Administrative Principal CIT/CIT, who, after considering the relevant facts, decide the quantum/proportion of demand. In view of the agreement aforesaid, the impugned order dated 06th March, 2017 is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the issues, as directed above. The appropriate order would be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. At the same time, hearing of the pending appeal also be expedited by the CIT (Appeals). With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.N. BHANDARI)J. Preeti, PA/34 "