| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1583 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 245
Where assessee had not adhered to the scheme of installment for remittance of tax and interest granted by ITSC, however, entire amount of tax and interest was remitted by the assessee during the pendency of the instant writ petition, thus, it would be considered that the assessee made the payments within the time granted under section 245H(1A). Hence, the impugned order passed by the ITSC withdrawing immunity granted to the assessee against penalty and prosecution, was liable to be deleted.
|
Settlement Commission - Order of Settlement Commission - Assessee failed to adhere to scheme of installment for remittance of tax and interest - Withdrawal of immunity against penalty and prosecution
Assessee approached Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for settlement of his case and an order was passed by the ITSC in terms of section 245(D)(4). Further, the assessee requested time to remit the tax and interest as computed by the ITSC in six monthly installments and his prayer was accepted. However, the scheme of payment was not adhered to on account of the assessee. Accordingly, the ITSC passed an order, withdrawing immunity granted to the assessee against penalty and prosecution on account of the admitted default in remittance of taxes. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an instant writ petition. Held: It was found that assessee was going through mental and personal stress and was engaged in litigation with family members, also contributing to health issues. That apart, the entire amount of tax and interest was remitted during the pendency of the instant writ petition. Thus, it would be considered that the assessee made the payments within the time granted under section 245H(1A). Hence, the impugned order passed by the ITSC withdrawing immunity granted to the assessee against penalty and prosecution, was deleted.
Relied:Sandeep Singh v. UOI & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 241
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
A. Muthukumar v. ITSC
Writ Petition No. 13370 of 2019, W.M.P.No.13485 of 2019
28 February, 2020
Petitioner by: A. Jenasenan, Moiiana Sundara Rajan S.
Respondent by: A.P. Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel
The petitioner has challenged an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (in short 'ITSC') dated 9-4-2019, withdrawing immunity granted against penalty and prosecution on account of the admitted default in remittance of taxes.
2. The petitioner had approached the ITSC for settlement of his case and an order had been passed on 22-5-2018 by the ITSC in terms of Section 245(D)(4). The petitioner had requested time to remit the tax and interest as computed by the Settlement Commission in six monthly installments and this prayer was accepted. Thus, the petitioner was directed to remit the tax and interest computed in six equal monthly installments starting from 1-6-2018 and ending on 30-11-2018. Admittedly, the scheme of payment has not been adhered to on account of, as stated by the petitioner, various difficulties in business and personal life to which I find no necessity to advert in detail. This resulted in a communication being issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)/R2 dated 13-3-2019, addressed to the ITSC, requesting that the immunity from penalty and transaction, already granted, be withdrawn.
The request of the PCIT was converted into a miscellaneous petition by the ITSC and after hearing the parties thereupon, the impugned order has come to be passed, assailed in this writ petition.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|