M/s. TSI Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1),

WP/6892/2023

AI Insights

The case involves TSI Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., which sought judicial intervention to direct the Income Tax Department to accept a revised income tax return for the assessment year 2021-2022. This request was made following an amalgamation with another company, which was sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The revised return was filed after the due date due to the complexities involved in the amalgamation process. The Income Tax Department initially rejected the revised return, leading to the filing of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753029 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dalmia Power Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I Trichyr
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Companies Act, 2013, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K CHOUDARY; G KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK CHOPRA
• Keywords: Amalgamation; Assessment year 2021-22; Income Tax; Revised return; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 139(5); 230; 1; 66; 170; 231; 232

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction ) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6892 OF 2023 Between: lV/s. TSI Business Parks (Hyderabad ) Pvt. Ltd . SY No 1 1 5(Part), Waverock Building, Nanakaramguda Village, Hyderabad - 500032 Telangana, Rep. by its Authorised signatory Sanjay Bhardwaj. ,..PETITIONER AND 1. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle- 2(1), sth Floor, Signature Towers Opp. Botanical Garden, Kondapur Hyderabad -500 084. 2. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance). t ,'1inistry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- '1 'l0001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particulars one in the notice of writ of mandamus particular the Respondent to take on record the revised return filed by the Petitioner for assessmenl yeat 2021-22 with letter daled 16.12.2022 (filed on 23.12.2022) giving effect of the amalgamation and direct the said return to be processed as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEEPAK CHOPRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. K.MAMATA CHOUDARY, SC FOR lT DEPT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THI] I{ON'B E 'II ll'. ClIIIll; ITIS'f ICI] TIIIAL BHT]YAN AN-D THE r{ON'B r-_LSRIJIJSTTCE_I{JUK4B4 4II (/.1'.No.6892 of 2023 ORDE[, p',',2,, r ltn'h/, tln ('ttLt ltt'tt.t t i.lrti,)t tt]) Lleard Mr. Deepah Cfiopra, learned counsel for the petitioneq lvk. K.N4.rmata Choudary leamed Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tirx Dcpirrtrnent for respondent No.1; and Mr. G.Praveen Kum:rr. lcerned Dcputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2. 2. By filing this petition trndt'r Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pctitioncr scr-li-s;r clirt'ction to the respondents to take on record the rcvisecl rlttrrrr f ilcd by it for the assessment year 2021-2a22 t>n 2J.ll.20ll elonq u.ith forwarding lener dated 16.12.2a22. lher trrking note ol the scheme of amalgamatlon. 3. Petitioner- I 4/s.'lSl IiLrsiness Parks (I{yderabad) Private Limited (tr':u.rsfen',' conrlr.rnr) .rnc'l NL/s. I 4illenial Business Park -.-_-. Private l.imited (tr-,rrtstcr-or conrl'r;rn1) had rtsolved on 03.06.2020 2 to amalgamate the translcror company with the transferee company. Therefore, a joint petition was filed under Sections 230 to 232 reacl with Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule I oi the Companies (Compromise, Arrangements and Aunalgarnations) Rules, 2016 before the National Cornpany Law Tribtrnal, Hlderabad (NCLT). lJltinately on 26.a4.2A21. NCI-'l' ,rpprovcd the scheme of amalgamation. Conscqucntll,,,1,.. rrtnsferor company got merged with thc rmnslcrtt' company with effect from 01.04.2020. 4. In conncction u'ith the f iling ol' rr:r,ised retum of income for the assessmenr yar 2a21-2a22 following such amalgamation, petitioner wrore ro respondent No. 1 on 16.12.2022 that after amalgamation, the entirc accounts ,r,.., hatl to be revised and in the process, tlre due date for l.ilins ine onrc tax revised retum for the said assessnrerlr w,ar bcinq ll-Ol.l0ll had long expired. Along with the saicl letrer, pctitioner lr;rd f ilcd thc revised return of income n.ranr.rally on 2.1.12.2012. In ihis lcttcr. petitioner had 3 rcliecl upon tltc rlecision oi the Supreme Coun in Dalrnia Porver Lin'ritccl r,. Assistirnt Cornmissioncr of Income Tax, Circle-I Trichvr. -t. Respondcnt No.1 passed an orderdated 11.01.2023 stating tlrat the m;rnu:ll r-etLul of income filed by the petitioner o rr I l. 1 2.202 I I o r I he ;rssess me nt year 2021-2022 was belncncl the dtre clete of filine thc rr:vised return of income for the said rlsscssnrent vc;-rr. ()bse rling that the said retum of income cor-rld not be rrcted up,rn in tlie :rbsence of anyorderof condonation of del.ir. [.r. 1lx' ct,rnPrtrnt rruthority, request of the petitioner wis tumecl dour. 6. Aqsdei,etl thcn'by, present writ petition came to be filed. 7. 4rcn thc u,rit petirion was moved onl4.03.2aD, leirmed Scnior St:rnding (lrtrrrsel souelrt for dme to obtain instnrctiors rtqrrding rlccel)trlr.. ol' the revised retum of income oi the (l0le) 1ll T., ,.,nn..., rrrr li.l iS(.1 .l petitioner in terur o[ the schcme of amalgamation approved by the NCLT. plirced beior-c the C.ourt provisions of Section 1704 ol tlic Inconre 'lhx Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) insened in tlrc stattrtc by-thc Ijinance Act.2022 with effect from 01.04.2012. Shc hes .rlso plrrceci bclbre the Court, a copy of notil.icaLion daretl 19.0').2022 issued bv the Central Board of Direcr 'hxes ((J]i)'l), u'hich tlcals u,ith filing of modified retum of ltlco nte iollorring business rtorganization in terms of Section 1ZOA oi tlre Act :rrr'l tlrt' iornrat o[ such modified return of incomc. 9. Ifou,cver, e llny mention that the assessment lear in the prrserlt case is 2021-2A22. Therefore, neither the provisions of Sccrion 17CA oi tlie Act nor the notification dated 19.09.2022 uould bc.rpplicable the facts of the preserlt 10 CiISC .IS Scction lTCr lnd come ir.rto eft-ect from 01,.04.2022 whcr-cas rhc rrotil ic:rti,rr lr:rd corrrc into el'fect [ron01.11.2a22. 8. In the heirring today, leamed Senior Snnding C-ounsel has 5 10. In Dalrnia Pos,er Limited (tup*), the issue beiort' the Sr.rpreme C-oun was whether the Income Tax Depanmcnt ought ro have pemritted the assessee companies to iile the revised incorre tax return for the assessmcnt year 2016-2017 :rlter expiry of the due date prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act on account of pendency of proceedings for anralg,rmation cll. thc companies with other companies rrnder Sections l,l0 ASSESSCE rc 232 of the Companies Act, 2013. 11. We may mention that in the aforcsaicl c,rsc. thc sclrcurc of amalgamation was approved and sanctioned by thc NCL'I' lfter the due date of filing the revised retlrm for tlie :rssessrnent yea.r 2016-2017. Supreme Coun refened to the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act and opined that the said provision u,ould not be applicable in a case where rcvised retum co,.rkl not be iiled on account of the time taken to grirnt srnction to the schcrne of amalgamation by NCI-T. Section 139(5) o1 th.' , ct cicals uith filing of revised retr-rn.r ',r,itlrin a p.-'riod ol otrr' ri'rrr' 6 upon discovery of an omission or w'ong statcment nr,rcle in t['re ir.ritial retum of income. Supren.re CoLut also r-cfcncd to Section 1/O of the Act and held that it is incrurbent trpon tlre Incorne Tax Depanment to assess thc total inconre oi the successor company in respect of the prcviolls .lssessrllent ).ear after the date of succession. Income 'fax Departnrcnt is r-cquirccl to assess the income of the successor conrp:ln)' :r[rc r t.rliirtg into account the revised returrr filed aftcr anrrrlg,rnrat iort of tlie cornpany. In the facts and circumstances of lhat c:rsc, Suprcrne: (burt directed the Income Tax Depanment to n'cei'e the revised return of income forthe assessnlcnt lrar 2016-2C17 liled bythe appellants therein and to cornplcte the ilssessnrent lor thc said assessmeflt year after taking into accor.urt th.' schcnre oi ,rmalsamation as sanctioned bythe NO.'f. 12. Upon thorough consideration, r'c are oi the vieu, thirt tirc dccision of the Supreme C-oun in Dalmirr Pos'cr l-inritccl (strpra) is squarely applicable to tlre f;rcts ol' tltc ptcs.'nl cilsc. Ir is because of circumstances bcyond thc cortturl of th,.' lrctiti,rn.'r that the reviscd retunr coulcl not be iiled before the due date. However, under Se ction 17a oi tlrc Act, Income Tax Departn'rent ts obligatcd to asscss the total income of the assessee of thc previoLls assessurcnt car post--anulgamation. 13. That being thc position, re set aside the order of respor.rdent No.1 datcd 11.01.101-l ,ind clirect hirn to take on board, the revised r-ctunr of irrconre liled bythe petitioner for the assessment year 2421-2C22 l.l.ll.1022 lnd thereafter to on process the same in accordan.:,.' uitlr l;ru'. 14. rWrit Petition is accorclinqly alloted. No costs. As a seqr\"rel, nriscellancotrs petitions, pending if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// qN/- N CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO \"-, -. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tl SECfION OFFICER \"' lX? :rr,*'I. giETJ;:'\":\",iHJ,,ffi t16 i :?:i rix1',', \"'*i - \" ;: : :\".;' - I,\"; z YdJsZ\"\"iitiiv (Finance) Unron ol lndra Nrinistrv or t lbt::Ei,&F,3'trffirfr s[5.0^,$'{i:l'llf#8.'ssrrsir\"r,,*o,o toPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies PSK.rr crefi ::7:: HIGH COURT DATED:1 110412023 ORDER WP.No.6892 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. ry o ,') 1 E ilN ?$I3 1 $-s. STA16 .t v1 "