TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be filed and he will rely on the record which is presently available with the court. Having regard to the fact that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows: "a) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order-dated 25.08.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, b) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to deposit the tax in pursuance to Form No.3 issued under DTVsV Act 2020..." 4. For the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 29.12.2020. 4.7. The petitioner avers that even before filing the declarations in Form 1 and 2, it had paid tax amounting to Rs 9 lakh. According to the petitioner, it has now to deposit only the balance amount i.e., Rs 1,09,800/-; which it would upon receiving intimation in the Form No. 3 from the respondents. 4.8. It appears that on 11.03.2022, the petitioner received a notice from the office of CIT(A) indicating the date of hearing in the appeal. 4.9. Furthermore, it is around this time that the petitioner had made inquiries with his Chartered Accountant with regard to the outcome of the proceedings undertaken by the petitioner under the DVSV Act. 4.10. According to the petitioner, since the Chartered Accountant was follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner, CBDT/respondent no. 1 via email dated 22.11.2022 sent the petitioner the impugned communication dated 25.08.2022, indicating that the timeline prescribed under the DVSV Act having expired, it was not possible to grant any extension. Furthermore, CBDT/respondent no. 1, once again, in our opinion, rightly, concluded that the provision of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was not applicable in the instant case. 5. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The facts and events, as noted hereinabove, have not been controverted by the contesting respondents i.e., respondent no. 1 and 2. 7. Mr Agarwal contends that once the timeline, as extended by CB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on 11.03.2022. 10. As submitted by Ms Bansal, the mistake, if any, was made by the Chartered Accountant who was not vigilant in accessing the information which was available on the petitioner's portal albeit, via his Login ID and Password. 11. We find some justification in the submission espoused on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner having paid a substantial part of the tax i.e., Rs 9 lakh, there was no good reason why the balance amount would not have been paid by it. 12. It is also not in dispute that CBDT/respondent no. 1 did extend the timeline for making deposits inter alia, under the DVSV Act, till 30.09.2021 and gave a further leeway to deposit the tax with interest till 31.10.2021. 13. Furthermore, what is not i....