Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
M/s GEE CEE Metals Private Limited (AOP). – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner, Income Tax and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 18 of 2023
Decided on : 05-04-2023
TDS - Income Tax - Circular No. 9/2015, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act - The court discussed Circular No. 9/2015 and Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which authorize the Board to issue orders to entertain applications for exemption, deduction, refund, or any other relief beyond the period of limitation. The court upheld the conditions prescribed in the circular for entertainment of delayed applications, stating that the petitioner failed to file the rectification application within the prescribed period, and therefore, the right to avail of the remedy of rectification stood barred by the law of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Association of Persons, sought relief for the credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 14,61,201/-, which was deducted under an incorrect PAN and not reflected in the new correct PAN. The petitioner's rectification application was not entertained due to being filed beyond the period of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to file the rectification application within the prescribed period, and therefore, the right to avail of the remedy of rectification stood barred by the law of limitation.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for relief regarding TDS credit, the validity of Circular No. 9/2015, and the petitioner's failure to file the rectification application within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to file the rectification application within the prescribed period barred the right to avail of the remedy of rectification.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Sri Vipin Sanghi, J.
The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to seek the following reliefs :-
b. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 18/02/2022 (ANNEXURE NO. -2) issued by the Respondent No-1 under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
c. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to rectify its Income Tax return qua the TDS amounting to Rs. 14,61,201/- now being reflected under the correct PAN AAAAG5553D of the Petitioner after the revision of the TDS Statement done by the Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division, Haldwani (Ranikhet Division got merged with Haldwani Division) ;
d. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing or reading down the time limit of six years as mentioned in the clause No. 3 of the Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015 (ANNEXURE NO. 1);
e. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the Grievance filed on 11/08/2020 and closed on 21/02/2021 (ANNEXURE NO. 6)
f. Issue any other writ, order or direction and /or allow any other consequential relief as expedient in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Association of Persons (AOP). The petitioner had applied for, and obtained the PAN Number in respect of the said Association of Persons. Petitioner states that the petitioner was issued PAN No. AACCG5304J. The said PAN Number related to a company, and not to an Association of Persons. Petitioner states that due to the said error in issuance of the PAN Card, TDS of the amount of Rs. 14,61,201/-, deducted by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Ranikhet - for whom the petitioner performed a contract, was not reflected in Form 26AS in the new PAN No. AAAAG5553D, which the petitioner obtained as an Association of Persons.
3. Petitioner further states that the petitioner requested for cancellation of the old PAN Number on 19.06.2008, since the petitioner had obtained a new PAN Number as an Association of Persons. It appears that, thereafter, there was a complete lull on the part of the petitioner, and the petitioner woke up only in the year 2020, and sought to take action for reflection of the TDS deducted, amounting to Rs. 14,61,201/-, against the new PAN Number obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008 itself. Petitioner states that the Income Tax Authorities have also reflected the aforesaid TDS amount against the new PAN Number of the petitioner, as an Association of Persons. The petitioner, then, applied for rectification of the Assessment Order under Section 143A of the Income Tax Act. However, the said application has not been entertained on the ground that the application for rectification had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and even beyond the period for which the application for condonation of delay could be entertained, which was six years from the end of the Assessment Year, for which the application/ claim is made. The order dated 18.02.2022, passed by respondent no. 1, reads as follows :-
The assessee has submitted application on 09.07.2021 for granting permission u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2008-09 and claiming refund.
In this regard, it is to state that as per
The right to avail of the remedy of rectification stands barred by the law of limitation if the application is not filed within the prescribed period.
The court ruled that tax credits must be recognized even if not recorded in the official form, as no limitation period restricts a taxpayer’s right to seek redress for corrective filings.
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act can be recognized based on the specific circumstances of the taxpayer, including age and health, and that the....
The court established that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act can be recognized based on the specific circumstances of the petitioner, including age and health, and that t....
Application for refund', in this case is the return which was not processed as it was filed beyond the time specified in Section 139 of the Act.
The court reaffirmed the necessity for timely resolution of rectification applications under the Income Tax Act to uphold statutory limitations and prevent undue tax demands.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
