TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, and Mr. Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. These are six Writ Petitions filed by the same assessee, the lead case being Writ Petition No.23255 of 2011 whereby the primary challenge is to the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application seeking permission for assessment of real and actual income after condoning the delay under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the relief sought for was consequential direction to the Income Tax Department. 4. Writ Petition No.17518 of 2011, Writ Petition No.17526 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.9667 of 2013 are Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of special auditor on terms which specifically included the verification of fictitious sales and income from the terms of reference for three assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2002-03, Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Year 2009-10. Writ Petition No.16722 of 2011 is a Writ Petition challenging the proceedings under Section 147 seeking to reopen the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008-09 have been duly adjusted as prior period adjustments; (iv) to permit the petitioner to file revised returns for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Year 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read together with the audited financial statements for the year ending 31st March, 2009 prepared pursuant to the orders of the Company Law Board and thereafter conduct a proper assessment excluding the fictitious sales and fictitious interest income; (v) to declare the revised audited financial statements of the petitioner which have been approved by the shareholders for the year ended March, 31, 2009, wherein the irregularities in the past financial statements have been rectified as prior period adjustments, be the basis of conducting assessment proceedings and any other proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2008-09; (vi) to direct the respondents not to proceed with recovery of tax till the income is computed / recomputed pursuant to the reliefs sought in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above; (vii) to declare the Assessment Orders for the Assessment Year 2002-03 to Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Since then, the GOI actively managed the company from 09.01.2009 to 16.04.2009. 11. On 17.02.2009, in the light of petitioner Company's severe financial distress, the GOI filed an application seeking induction of a strategic investor into Satyam. In that context, the GOI raised a 600 crore loan to alleviate the company's financial hardship. Thereafter, on 19.02.009, the CLB permitted the GOI to conduct a bidding process under the supervision of a former retired Chief Justice of India to induct strategic investors to run the company's operations. 12. With the intervention of the GOI, and the subsequent orders passed by the CLB, a retired Chief Justice of India, viz., Justice S.P. Bharucha oversaw the bidding process and M/s. Tech Mahindra was inducted into the petitioner Company as the successful bidder and major shareholder of the petitioner Company. On 16.04.2009, the CLB directed the successful bidder to infuse an amount of Rs.2,908 crores into the petitioner Company through share capital and loans. The CLB also extended the time to file returns / documents with various statutory authorities till 31.12.2009 and directed that no State or Central Government agencies should i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the accused to surrender by 10.11.2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed the Trial Court to conduct trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it by 31.07.2011; and if the trial is not concluded, the accused were allowed to file an application for bail. It further stated that the Trial Court should remain uninfluenced by any observations made by either the High Court or the Supreme Court. 18. A Special Court was constituted pursuant to a direction issued on administrative side to hear the CBI charge-sheet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the learned Judge hearing the CBI case in the Satyam scam shall not be transferred till the trial is concluded and trial shall be conducted on day-to-day basis. 19. The CBI filed three reports before the Special Court and the gist of the report as per the CBI was : (i) the promoters dishonestly credited additional tax liabilities and made tax payments on fictitious income and further made the company, i.e., Satyam, suffer a loss to the tune of Rs..126 crores which went detrimental to the interest of the company; and (ii) the CBI also in its report held that the remaining members of the Board were not aware of the true finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de order dated 31.12.2014, dismissed the said writ appeal. In the course of deciding the same, the Division Bench held as was decided in the earlier set of litigations referred to in the preceding paragraphs, highlights of which are as follows : (i) the petitioner-Company, in spite of the clear evidence of the income being highly inflated and the Company being a victim of fraud, was made to pay dividends when the petitioner Company "Satyam" was in fact incurring substantial loss, and this resulted in an extra tax burden of Rs..39.86 crores for the Financial Year 2007-08 alone; (ii) the petitioner Company was made to pay income tax on inflated and non-existent profit and also on fictitious income to the tune of Rs..126.57 crores; (iii) the benefits of illegal flow of funds went into the coffers of the Income Tax Department as a result of the illegal excess payment of tax based on fictitious and non-existent income; (iv) the Division Bench also went to the extent of holding that these excess payments of receipt of tax by the Income Tax Department should actually be treated as proceeds of crime as the accused promoters not only got enrolled themselves but also shared the gains with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity or for that matter could not have been prosecuted for any illegalities committed by the persons who were at the helm of affairs of petitioner Company at the time of commission of the offence. 26. The learned Single Judge went on to hold that for the offences committed by the person at the helm of affairs of the petitioner Company at the relevant point of time cannot be saddled upon or attributed upon to the petitioner-company. However, the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17525 of 2014, dated 22.12.2014, was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(Criminal) No.34143 of 2017. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.12.2017 dismissed the said S.L.P. validating the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17525 of 2014, dated 22.12.2014, insofar as quashing of the complaint lodged under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is concerned. Meanwhile, the SFIO filed a criminal complaint before the Special Economic Offences, viz., C.C.Nos.394 and 400 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad : C.C.No.394 of 2009 was registered for violation of provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it was the former Chairman and Managing Director, viz., Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju, who had made dishonest tax payments based on fictitious income and disabled the company from raising its lawful claim of refunds. 29. Based on the said finding fact in a series of litigation by the Court with its approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the stand of the Income Tax Department amounts to frustrating the concerted and extra-ordinary efforts made by the Government of India in the revival of the petitioner-company. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a series of finding of fact of there being fictitious income reflected in the return submitted by M/s. Satyam Computers. Yet, the Income Tax Department inexplicably seeks to deny the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners insofar that excess tax has been paid. The Income Tax Department also, in spite of all these admitted factual matrix of the case, was denying deduction that M/s. Satyam Computers was entitled to under Section 10(a) on its actual / real income. At the same time, the Income Tax Department also seeks to levy incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the Companies Act 1956 did not contain a provision for re- audit. The provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1st April, 2016). 34. The procedure agreed to be followed, which is fully described in the AUP Reports, is briefly mentioned below: a) The Company started with the published financial statements audited by Price Waterhouse (PwC). PwC had issued a letter stating that these accounts should not be relied upon after the discovery of accounts fraud. i. The company adjusted each item of the profit & loss account and the balance sheet based on the report of the forensic accountants for each of the above financial years. ii. B K Khare & Co. checked the above procedure and issued reports for each of the years i.e. Financial Years 2001-02 to 2007-08. iii. By following the procedures described above, SCSL computed revised Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2001-02 to 2007-08, mirroring the audited accounts if re-audit were possible. 35. The company has also obtained revised Form 56F certificates giving the correct quantification of deduction to be claimed under Section 10A/10AA of the Act. The certifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fraudulent and fictitious income assessment made during all these periods and which stands established from the orders passed by various judicial and quasi- judicial authorities. 41. It is these petitions which have been rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.07.2011 by the CBDT which has led to filing of the main case i.e. Writ Petition No.23255 of 2011. The CBDT held that: a) For each assessment year, assessment / reassessment proceedings are pending before the AO. Therefore, the petitioner Company can agitate the issues before the AO; b) The power under Section 119 is not available to the petitioner; c) The relief under Section 119(2)(b) is also not available to the petitioner Company since it has not been proved by the Department or the CBI and ED that the petitioner Company has suffered genuine hardship; d) SFIO report cannot be relied upon; e) There is no conclusive evidence that can be drawn from the forensic investigation report; and f) The criminal prosecution is pending. Therefore, the CBI reports cannot be relied upon. 42. After rejection of the aforesaid petition under Section 119(1) of the Income Tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was also the contention of the petitioner that CBDT has erroneously stated that there was no evidence of fictitious income and this statement alone is sufficient to quash the order. When the Union of India took emergency steps to superside the Board the later appointed a retired Chief Justice to conduct the bid process and prayed for forensic and fresh audit, the CBDT was in serious error in giving a finding that there was no bogus income. 47. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that from the decisions that have been taken by the High Court referred to in the earlier paragraphs, it stands undisputed so far as the existence of fraud which came to light on the letter issued by the former Chairman, Mr. Ramalinga Raju. It was also an undisputed fact that, on account of the inflated income the petitioner has suffered genuine hardship for the subsequent assessment years. The hardship grew because of denial of deductions on : (a) genuine export income; (b) foreign tax credit; and (c) genuine expenditure which the company had made and incurred during regular course of business during the said period of time when inflated incomes were shown in the book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alinga Raju, were all decided in favour of the petitioner Company holding them to be not responsible for any of the allegations, charges and contentions leveled against them. Hence, in the light of the cases getting dropped, it stands proved and admitted so far as the fictitious income and the statement of account all at the hands of the erstwhile Chairman of the petitioner-Company, who himself was to be blamed for all the illegalities and which simultaneously proves that the petitioner Company was paying income tax for a considerable period till now on fictitious and non-existing income. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it was on these set of facts that they have moved a petition before the respondent-Authorities for re- assessment of their income based upon the actual business transactions that have transpired during the relevant point of time. 51. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it was only with an intention of putting the records straight in respect of the actual income tax expenditure of the company during the relevant assessment years rather than fictitious income, expenditure and the tax paid on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the prayer for a further re-assessment. 54. The learned Additional Solicitor-General referred to proviso to Clause (1) of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act contending that the proviso itself does not permit the C.B.D.T. to issue instructions requiring the Income Tax authority to act in a particular manner so far as assessment is concerned. In the teeth of the said proviso, according to the learned Additional Solicitor-General, the Income Tax Department was justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner- Company, more particularly, when the applications and requests are made at an inordinately belated stage by which time the accounts submitted by the petitioner Company have attained finality by efflux of time. He, however, submitted that realizing the genuine hardship that the petitioner Company was put to; their claims for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 have been accepted. However, for the period for which there was no strong, cogent reasons available with them, the Income Tax Department could not have permitted the request so made. 55. The learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the claims raised by the petitioner of the assessment orders being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the same and no such case has been made out by the petitioner. 59. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that for certain assessment years the Assessing Officer has already initiated proceedings under Section 154 and orders have also been passed which are subject matter of appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and therefore no such direction can be sought by the petitioner, nor can such a relief be granted by the CBDT. According the learned Additional Solicitor General, the revision of the assessment order by a Commissioner is permissible strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 264 which is itself a self- contained provision and the CBDT as such does not have the power to issue any such direction for the Commissioner either of facts or on law. 60. Relying upon the entire submissions made, it was summed-up by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the entire claim of the petitioner under no stretch of imagination can be brought within the purview of a direction which could be issued for proper administration of the statute. Further, it was also contended that the prayers raised by the petitioner also is specifically b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, issue, from time to time (whether by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of sections 115P, 115S, 115WD, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 115WH, 115WJ, 115WK, 139, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, 158BFA, sub-section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234E, 95[234F,] 270A, 271, 271C, 271CA (and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other income-tax authorities in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalties and any such order may, if the Board is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, be published and circulated in the prescribed manner for general information;" 65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent past dealing with the powers vested upon the CBDT has laid down certain judicial precedents, which are as under, viz., 65.1 In the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. In terms of the said provision, therefore, all acts relating to the imposition of tax providing, inter alia, for the point at which the tax is to be collected, the rate of tax as also its recovery must be carried out strictly in accordance with law. 20. If the substantive provision of a statute provides for refund, the State ordinarily by a subordinate legislation could not have laid down that the tax paid even by mistake would not be refunded. If a tax has been paid in excess of the tax specified, save and except the cases involving the principle of "unjust enrichment", excess tax realised must be refunded. The State, furthermore is bound to act reasonably having regard to the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 65.3 A similar view was also taken earlier in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Another AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1107 where a circular was issued by CBDT under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was challenged inter alia on the ground that it was ultra vires the provisions of Section 19(1). The argument was rejecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision the Board is vested with the power to admit any application after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act if sufficient grounds are made out. In our view, therefore, the said reason mentioned by the petitioner in its application, deserves to be accepted. The other reasons cited for condonation of delay, therefore, need not be gone into as the petitioner in our view, would be entitled to condonation of delay on the said ground alone. 8. It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice- oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities." 65.6 In the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.30 as under, viz., "30. No body or authority, statutory or not, vested with powers can abstain from exercising the powers when an occasion warranting such exercise arises. Every power vested in a public authority is coupled with a duty to exercise it, when a situation calls for such exercise. The authority cannot refuse to act at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts is eminently a fit case for making such claim, it should not normally be defeated on the bar of limitation, particularly, when the delay or the time period for which condonation is sought is not abnormally large. It will of course depend upon the facts of the each case, where such a time period or the merit of the claim deserves such exercise of discretion in favour of the assessee under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act or not and therefore, no straight jacket formula or guidelines can be laid down in this regard. However, such orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being a quasi-judicial order is always open to judicial review by the higher constitutional courts. If the good conscience of the Courts is pricked, even though such orders rejecting the claims on the bar of limitation may appear to be prima facie tenable, the Courts may exercise Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another. their jurisdiction to set aside such orders and allow the claims on merits, setting aside the bar of limitation." 66. Dealing with the relevancy of collecting tax on the real income and the actual expenses incurred on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e made on the basis of actual receipts and actual outgoings or disbursements or it may be the mercantile system where entries are made on accrual basis, i.e., accrual of the right to receive payment and the accrual of the liability to disburse or pay. In CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [(1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC)] it has been laid down: (ITR p. 148) "... Income tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a 'hypothetical income', which does not materialise." 14. This principle is applicable whether the accounts are maintained on cash system or under the mercantile system. If the accounts are maintained under the mercantile system what has to be seen is whether income can be said to have really accrued to the assessee company. In H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom)] the Bombay High Court had said: "... Even so, (the failure to produce account lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t have any bearing..." 66.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) held as under: "Income-tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If incomes does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a "hypothetical income", which does not materialize. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given up in such circumstances that it remains the income of the receipient, even though given up, the tax may be payable. Where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account. A mere book-keeping entry cannot be income, unless income has actually resulted, and in the present case, by the change of the terms the income which accrued was received consisted of the lesser ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court held in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 as under, viz., "16. The term "genuine" as per the New Collins Concise English Dictionary is defined as under: "'Genuine' means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse)". 17. [Ed. : Para 17 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./5/2009 dated 20-1-2009.] For interpretation of the aforementioned provision, the principle of purposive construction should be resorted to. Levy of interest is statutory in nature, inter alia, for recompensating the Revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. The said principle should also be applied for the purpose of determining as to whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship would, inter alia, mean a genuine difficulty. That per se would not lead to a conclusion that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied. 18. The ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to benefit by lodging its claim late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund." 67.3 The High Court of Kerala in the case of Pala Marketing Co-op. Socy. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors 2008 (1) KLJ 561 held in paragraph No.3 as under: "3. What is stated in Section 119(2)(b) is that if the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer of the Board under Section 119(2)(b) to admit an application or claim or return filed after the period specified for avoiding genuine hard- ship caused in any case or class of cases has also been recognised in John Shalex Paints (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 523 (Karn); H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526 (Karn); Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 233 ITR 745 (Mad); Mysore Sales International Ltd.'s case [1998] 233 ITR 663 (Karn) ; Kusumben M. Parikh's case [2000] 242 ITR 501 (Guj) and Dharampal Singh Pall's case [2001] 250 ITR 629 (MP). By admitting a belated claim for refund, the Board neither interferes with the course of assessment of any particular assessee nor with the discretion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which, according to the Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, is the only restriction on the powers of the Board under Section 119 of the Act." 68. Again dealing with the topic of orders passed by fraud losing its judicial sanctity and holding that fraud vitiates everything, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down quite a few judicial precedents, some of which are menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory appeal against the award. Not only because of the bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then. 16. Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. 17. The allegation made by the appellant Insurance Company, that the claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in the claim petitions, cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the matter, for the said allegation has not been specifically denied by the claimants when they were called upon to file objections to the applications for recalling of the awards. The claimants then confined their resistance to the plea that the application for recall is not legally maintainable. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Advocate-General is that any order obtained by playing fraud on the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, is a nullity and non-est in the eve of law. 65. It is submitted that it can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings. 66. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. The parties are not left without any legal remedy when a party to a judgment or order later discovers that such judgment or order was obtained by fraud. 67. Denning LJ has said: "No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. (See: Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702). 68. In Indian Bank (supra), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to the power of the authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud, and observed: "The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recalling of orders obtained by parties by playing fraud upon Courts. The Court, Tribunal, quasi-judicial bodies and other authorities have clear and definite power to recall and set aside such orders obtained by playing fraud. Silence and indifference on the part of the Courts and authorities result in perpetuating fraud. Judicial process gets sullied resulting not only in miscarriage of justice but also in erosion of public faith and confidence in the system of administration of justice. It is the duty of all entrusted with judicial power to keep streams of judicial process pure and free from pollution." 69. Very recently, in almost an similar if not identical set of facts, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(2)(1) and Ors Writ Petition (L) NO.8766 of 2024 vide its judgment dated 30.04.2024 had allowed the writ petition and had granted the relief similar to the relief sought for in the present batch of writ petitions. 70. Reading of the facts in the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, what is clearly reflected is that the of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 130(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, as taken on record by the NCLT for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2020-21 before the JAO within 30 days from the date this order is uploaded. On or before 28th February 2025 the A.O. shall frame assessments in accordance with law considering the revised returns of income filed based on recasted/revised books of account for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2020-21. 26. In view of what is recorded above, any assessment order passed under Section 143(3) or 144(C) of the Act for any of the years for which recasted/revised accounts have been filed will not survive. So also consequential notices, if any, issued or orders, if any, passed. 27. We clarify that accepting returns of income on recasted accounts will not absolve anybody from any action that may be taken on the basis of earlier accounts based on investigation which are on going. If after investigation, if these recasted accounts are required to be relooked or reworked, the company shall not raise issue of limitation for a period of three years from the date on which the assessment order is passed." 71. Given the fact that the Bombay High Court has in the recent past itself allowed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered in the affirmative in the view of the findings given by this Bench in the preceding paragraphs based on the judicial precedents. 74. This Court is conscious of the fact that post re-assessment; there is a likelihood of inflated values emerging which could possibly show surplus tax having been paid potentially burdening the Revenue. However, the petitioner Company has voluntarily agreed not to make any claim for refund. The petitioner Company has filed a memo in this regard dated 15.02.2024 undertaking to waive any such surplus tax having been paid which may arise after assessment. This proactive step by the petitioner Company provides additional compelling ground for allowing this petition, particularly in light of there being no financial implication falling on the Revenue. This gesture on the part of the petitioner to mitigate potential financial implications also shows their commitment only with an intention of getting a fair and genuine assessment so far as the income and the expenditure of the petitioner Company for the relevant period is re....