TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of Section 9(c) of the said Act. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to act in terms of the certificate issued in Form-3 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 2020 (vide Annexure-14) after granting the benefit of adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13, which is duly reflected in the official portal of the respondent-authorities itself. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of declaration, declaring that the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the declaration/revised declaration filed by the petitioner under the Act, 2020 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon the respondent authorities. (iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 20,95,633/-, which is refundable to the petitioner in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 2020 consequent upon acceptance of its declaration under the said Act; (v) For issuance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as passed, wherein, against its declared income of Rs. 10,48,440/-, the net taxable income was determined at Rs. 2,41,80,980/- (Annexure-5). The said assessment order was subject matter of challenge under Section 264 of the I.T. Act, and, vide order dated 28.03.2017, said assessment order was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame de novo assessment by making fresh enquiries, and, pursuant to the aforesaid order passed under Section 264, fresh de novo Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 was passed, wherein income of the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 10,48,440/- to Rs. 2,62,71,970/-. Being aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 250 of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner (Appeal), which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018 and, subsequently, petitioner preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi on 30.03.2019 which was pending consideration on the date of filing of the declaration form. 5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that for the same Assessment Year 2012-13, during pendency of the appeal before ITAT, Ranchi, Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....already been issued, Petitioner should file revised declaration and, if such revised declaration is filed by the Petitioner, tax which has already been paid by the Petitioner and not reflected in the certificate would be rectified and, if any amount is found refundable to the Petitioner, same would be refunded to it. Accordingly, Petitioner filed a revised declaration on 23.01.2021 before the Respondent-authority. However, said declaration was rejected vide order dated 15th March, 2021 by placing reliance upon Section 9(c) of the Scheme. Said revised/fresh declaration dated 23.01.2021 was rejected by the Designated Authority on the ground that Charge-sheet No. 12 dated 31.12.2020 has been submitted in Case No. AC1 2018 A0007 in which one of the Directors of the declarant-company namely, Sunil Sah has been made as an accused for the offences punishable under Section 120B and 511 I.P.C. read with Sections 7,12, 15, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is in the said factual background, present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner. 10. Mr. Kartik Kurmy, while advancing arguments on behalf of the Petitioner, contended, inter alia, that provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the original declaration, Respondent-authorities committed error in not granting adjustment of the entire tax paid by the Petitioner prior to filing of the declaration and it was contended that had the entire tax amount paid by the Petitioner been adjusted at the time of original declaration itself, there would have been no occasion for the Petitioner to file revised declaration and the Petitioner, as against an amount of Rs. 9,08,075/- determined as payable in the certificate issued to the Petitioner in Form-3, would have been entitled for refund of an amount of Rs. 20,96,726/-. Further, while placing reliance upon Para-38 of the writ petition, it has been stated that Petitioner, in the writ application, has clearly stated, inter alia, that on noticing the error which crept in the original certificate dated 20.01.2021, it approached the Respondent-authorities and was verbally informed to file revised declaration and assurance was given that if Petitioner files revised declaration, benefit under the Scheme would be extended to the Petitioner and 'mismatch' shown in the original certificate would be rectified and, if any amount is found payable to the Petitioner, the same would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys & Anr., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 334', to contend, inter alia, that purposive construction of a Statute should be advanced in furtherance of the objective of the provisions of the statute. 14. Ms. Amrita Sinha further, by placing reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Balasubramanian, reported in (2006) 204 ELT 193 (SC), contended, inter alia, that the term 'prosecution has been instituted' would not only mean that charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and, on the strength of the above, it was contended that since the criminal case was instituted in the year 2017 itself and charge-sheet was submitted before filing of the fresh declaration, the same was rightly rejected by Respondent-authority. Ms. Amrita Sinha placed reliance upon CBDT Circular No. 21/2020 dated 4th December, 2020 and has referred to Question No. 89 and its answer, to contend, inter alia, that second declaration filed by the Petitioner on 23.01.2021 is a fresh declaration and not a revised declaration and, under the said circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 5(3) clearly provided, inter alia, that every order passed under Section 5(1) would be conclusive as to the matter stated thereunder and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any other proceeding under the Income Tax Act. For the sake of ready reference, Section 5 of the Scheme is quoted herein-under:- "5. (1) The designated authority shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the declaration, by order, determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of this Act and grant a certificate to the declarant containing particulars of the tax arrear and the amount payable after such determination, in such form as may be prescribed. (2)The declarant shall pay the amount determined under subsection (1) within fifteen days of the date of receipt of the certificate and intimate the details of such payment to the designated authority in the prescribed form and thereupon the designated authority shall pass an order stating that the declarant has paid the amount. (3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the amount payable under this Act, shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax arrears shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Meaning thereby, in the instant case, after the declaration of the Petitioner-declarant was accepted by issuance of certificate under Section 5(1) of the Act, dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure-14), appeal pending before ITAT, Ranchi filed on 13.03.2019 (Annexure-9) and the appeal pending before the CIT (Appeals), Ranchi filed on 24.02.2020 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 were deemed to have been withdrawn. 20. Once the said appeals are deemed to have been withdrawn by operation of law, the same cannot be revived or restored merely because a declarant, under mistaken notion, has filed a fresh declaration, which was, subsequently, rejected by the Designated Authority. If the said situation is allowed to operate, the same would have devastating effects and would prejudice the entire Scheme framed by the Parliament. If filing of one declaration after another is permitted, then even the provisions of Section 7 of the Scheme would be rendered futile which provides, inter alia, that any amount paid in pursuance of a declaration, shall not be refundable under any circumstances. An assessee, taking advantage of filing second declaration and....