The court affirmed that amendments to the Income Tax Act permit TDS deposit extensions up to the return filing date, emphasizing adherence to legislative intent in tax compliance cases.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the legislature by subsequent amendment to Sections 191, 201, 43B, 40(a) (ia) rws 139 of the IT Act has allowed additional time to the depositor to deposit TDS beyond Rule 30 of the IT Rules during the previous year before date of filing the return of income U/s. 139 of the IT Act.

b) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.12.2023 bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059018326(1) Annexure-D u/s. 279(1) of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent.

c) Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents had passed identical orders under Section 276B r/w 278B of the Income Tax for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were tried by the petitioners along with other petitioners in W.P.No.24937/2022 and 24938/2022 and connected matters in which this Court vide final order dated 31.01.2024 set aside the orders impugned therein and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

4. It is submitted that the present petition relates to the Assessment year 2014-15 and by applying the doctrine of parity that since the aforesaid petition in W.P.No.24937/2022 and W.P.No.24938/2022 were in respect of the very same petitioners, the order impugned in the present petition at Annexure – D dated 22.12.2023 also deserves to be set aside and matter remitted back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners along with others approached this Court in W.P.No.24937/2022 and W.P.No.24938/2022 and connected matters in relation to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were allowed and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 as hereunder:

“In W.P.No.24901/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022.

b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.02.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)C-27/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent."

In W.P.No.24922/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022)