Srirama Pankajam Vs the Union of India

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the rejection order vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1062609373 (1) dated 14.03.2024

¶20

2

¶21

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶22

passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the application dated 18.03.2021 submitted by the Petitioner herein for refund of Rs. 11, 08, 486/- paid in excess under the head of income from capital gains in the AY 2013-14 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act besides being violative of Articles 14, and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 herein to refund the tax Rs. 11, 08, 486/- towards the tax paid by the Petitioner herein for the Assessment Year 2013-14and/or pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased direct the Respondents No. 3& 4 herein to consider the application(s) dated 18.03.2021 and 13.11.2023 submitted by the Petitioner without reference to DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1062609373 (1) dated 14.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.3 and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Grant leave to the Respondents to file the counter affidavit in W.P. 29398 of 2024 by condoning the delay in the interest of justice and also direct that the said counter affidavit be taken on record and or Pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI

¶31

2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶32

3

¶33

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶34

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶35

The petitioner herein had inherited a 1/3^rd share from the undivided property, along with a building bearing D.No.10-4-18/B, in layout No.218/61 of town survey No.1041 of Waltair ward within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. This property had devolved on her, along with her son and daughter, on account of the demise of her husband, who was the owner of this property.

¶36

The petitioner along with her son and daughter, had given the said land for development, by way of construction of flats to M/s. Sri Lakshmi Vallabha Constructions, Visakhapatnam vide Development Agreement cum GPA, dated 24.02.2011. The petitioner had thereafter, claimed that, capital gains, on account of this transaction, would arise in the financial year, 2012-2013, corresponding to assessment year, 2013-2014. On that basis, the petitioner offered and paid an amount of Rs.11,08,486/- as capital gains of tax arising out of this transaction, in relation to assessment year, 2013-2014.

¶37

The 4^th respondent, however, initiated assessment proceedings for the financial year, 2010-2011, corresponding to assessment year, 2011-2012, contending that, the capital gains arise, out of the aforesaid transaction, in the financial year, 2010-2011, and as such, capital gains should have been paid in that year. These assessment proceedings culminated, in an Order, dated 13.12.2018, passed by the 5^th respondent.

¶38

4

¶39

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶40

The petitioner being aggrieved by this Order, had filed an Appeal, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Visakhapatnam. While the said Appeal was pending, the petitioner taking an advantage of the scheme ‘Vivad Se Viswas Scheme’, introduced by the 1^st respondent, has paid a sum of Rs.9,55,706/- as tax towards full and final settlement of all dues arising against the petitioner, on 22.02.2021.

¶41

The petitioner, after making such payment, had then approached the 3^rd respondent – Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, for refund of the tax paid, for the assessment year, 2013-2014. This application was made under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows:

¶42

“ 119. Instructions to subordinate authorities:- (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board:

¶43

Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued -

¶44

(a). so as to require any income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or (b). so as to interfere with the discretion of [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] in the exercise of his appellate functions.

¶45

(2). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, -

¶46

(a).

¶47

(b). the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize [any income-tax authority, not being [a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals)]] to admit an application or claim for

¶48

5

¶49

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶50

any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law;”

¶51

This application came to be rejected by the 3^rd respondent with the

¶52

following endorsement:

¶53

“3. The submissions made by the assessee have been carefully examined. The issue with regard to issue of refund is not a subject matter of section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961, which is a legal issue and does not come under the purview of section 119(2)(b). Hence, the application made u/s 119(2)(b) is rejected .”

¶54

Aggrieved by this order of rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶55

Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, this is a case of genuine hardship in as much as the petitioner is being forced to pay tax on capital gains, twice, on the same transaction and the same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which requires any tax would have to be on the basis of a Law, which is reasonable and fair. The learned counsel would also contend that, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is without giving any reasons in as much as the reason given has no relevance to the claim raised by the petitioner.

¶56

Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, the learned Standing Counsel for Income

¶57

Tax, appearing for the respondents, relies upon a Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, issued on 09.06.2015. The learned Standing Counsel

¶58

6

¶59

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶60

would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph – 3 of the said Circular bearing No.9/2015. In this paragraph, the Authorities were directed not to entertain any claim, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, if it is beyond the period of six (06) years from the assessment year for which the claim is made. He would submit that, in the present case, the assessment order, in which the payments have been made, was for the assessment year 2013-2014, and the limitation, would end on, 31.03.2020, whereas the claim under Section 119(2)(b) had been made by the petitioner, on 18.03.2021, which is beyond the period of six (06) years.

¶61

The learned Standing Counsel would further elaborate that, the period of six (06) years was stipulated, under this clause because the Department requires to maintain the records of the assessee for a period of six (06) years and it would be difficult for the Department to ascertain the actual facts beyond the period of six (06) years.

¶62

The aforesaid contention of the learned Standing Counsel would have to be rejected, on two (02) grounds. Firstly, there is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner had paid the tax, on the same transaction, for the assessment year, 2013-2014 as well as for the assessment year, 2011-2012. In such circumstances, the availability or absence of records would make no difference.

¶63

It is settled law that the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would be binding on the Authorities. However, such guidelines or

¶64

7

¶65

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶66

circulars would not be binding on this Court, especially when this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, the fact remains that there is no time period stipulated under Section 119(2)(b). A look at Section 119(2)(b) would also show that claims, which cannot be made, on account of expiry of time for making such claims are still be considered under Section 119(2)(b). In such circumstances, fixing an outer time limit in relation to such claims can be counterproductive. This would also be contrary to the spirit of Section 119(2)(b).

¶67

The undisputed fact is that the petitioner has suffered double taxation on the very same transaction. In such circumstances, there is a genuine hardship, which requires to be dealt with by the Department. However, the 3^rd respondent refused to deal with this issue and sought to reject the claim of the petitioner, on grounds, which are entirely extraneous to the issue.

¶68

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a genuine hardship suffered by the petitioner, which requires to be rectified by this Court.

¶69

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the 3^rd respondent, dated 14.03.2024, with a further direction to the respondents to refund the tax of Rs.11,08,486/- collected from the petitioner, for the assessment year, 2013-2014. Further, since the petitioner had to pay tax, for the assessment year, 2011-2012 only, in 2021, there shall be no requirement to pay interest till that date. However, interest shall be paid by the Department,

¶70

8

¶71

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.29398 of 2024

¶72

on the amount of Rs.11,08,486/- from the date on which the petitioner had

¶73

filed the application under Section 119(2)(b) till date of payment.

¶74

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand