The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1531 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 274 TAXMAN 0253

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 245D(4)

Since there was no shortfall as on date as confirmed by the officer, even though there was a shortfall, according to Department, as on date of application before SC. On an overall consideration of the matter, this was not a case where assessee had consciously short-paid admitted tax, therefore order treating the application as invalid and Settlement Commission was directed to take the matter up for hearing on merits.

Settlement commission - Short payment of admitted tax - Payment of additional taxes is a primary condition for maintainability of the application -

Assessee assailed the order of Settlement Commission contending that Commission had rejected the application of assessee as 'invalid', since the payment of additional taxes was a primary condition for maintainability of application. The report of the Commissioner under Rule 2B had pointed out that there was a short payment of tax. Held: Admitted position was that there was no shortfall as on date as confirmed by the officer, even though there was a shortfall, according to Department, as on date of application before SC. On an overall consideration of the matter, this was not a case where assessee had consciously short-paid admitted tax. In addition, the differences are quite insignificant in the context of the entirety of the payments made. Therefore order treating the application as invalid was thus set aside and the Settlement Commission was directed to take the matter up for hearing on merits.

REFERRED : Dr. Prathap Chandra Reddy v. Income Tax Settlement Commission [W.P. No. 5333 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 6553 & 6554 of 2018, dt. 19-6-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4226 (Mad-HC)

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. : 2011-12 to 2017-18

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

Krishna Venkata Ramana Shetty v. ITSC

Writ Petition No. 33881 of 2018, WMP Nos. 39345 & 39346 of 2018

22 January, 2020

Petitioner by: Sathish Parasaran for R. Sivaraman

Respondent by: A.P. Srinivas, SSC

ORDER

The order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (in short 'SC' or Commission) dated 11-12-2018 is assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The Commission has rejected the application of the petitioner for assessment years (AY) 2011-12 to 2017-18 as 'invalid', since the payment of additional taxes is a primary condition for maintainability of the application. The report of the Commissioner under Rule 2B had pointed out that there was a short payment of tax, amounting to Rs. 4,58,772 for assessment year 2015-16, Rs. 3,52,780 for assessment year 2013-14 and Rs. 7,84,966 for assessment year 2016-17.

3. There have been a significant number of hearings in this matter and both the petitioner and the revenue have filed their versions of the pending arrears for various assessment years, as on date. Vide Letter, dated 21-1-2020, after considering the consolidated position of pending demands for assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Assessing Authority confirms that there is no shortfall in the tax remitted by the petitioner taking into consideration the TDS credits available for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT