Court Orders Refund of Excess Tax for AY 2014-2015 under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

M/s. Vyasa Plot & Housing Private Limited, M/s. SSD Homes & Estate Developers Private Limited, M/s. Sangupathi Properties Private Limited, M/s. Anu Plot & Housing Private Limited Versus The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2 (2), Chennai, The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Chennai

M/s. Vyasa Plot & Housing Private Limited, M/s. SSD Homes & Estate Developers Private Limited, M/s. Sangupathi Properties Private Limited, M/s. Anu Plot & ... Issues:
1. Entitlement for an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Refund of tax paid by the petitioners under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
3. Applicability of previous judgments to the current case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement for an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deleting the protective addition for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioners had voluntarily offered to pay tax for 2014-2015 but later settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the previous year. The respondents argued against revising returns post-assessment, citing the decision in Goetze (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The court considered whether the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme justified passing an order under Section 154.

Issue 2: Refund of tax paid by the petitioners under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020
The court examined if the petitioners, having settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, were entitled to a refund of the tax paid. Previous judgments highlighted that the purpose of the Income Tax Act is to collect correct and just tax, not to collect or retain any undue amounts from an assessee. The court referred to the Unichem Laboratories Ltd case, emphasizing that the department should not levy or collect tax that is not due, and there is no limitation for refund under Section 237 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 3: Applicability of previous judgments to the current case
The court referenced a previous judgment where similar circumstances led to a decision in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that an assessee should not be taxed twice on the same income. The court reiterated that the department's duty is to collect the correct amount of tax under the law, not to retain excess amounts. Based on these precedents, the court allowed the Writ Petitions, directing the respondents to refund the excess tax paid by the petitioners for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 along with interest within a specified period.

In conclusion, the court allowed the Writ Petitions, granting relief to the petitioners based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and the principle that an assessee should not be taxed twice on the same income.