Arjunkumar Chimanlal Desai Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a pending Rectification Application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application, stated to be dated 12.03.2025, had not yet been decided by the respondent-authorities. At the same time, an outstanding amount of Rs.7,54,560/- for Assessment Year 2013 continued to be reflected against the petitioner on the income-tax e-filing portal as on 12.08.2025.
The petitioner specifically contended that TDS of Rs.5,17,060/- had been allowed as per the intimation/acknowledgment referred to in the Rectification Application. According to the petitioner, the difference of Rs.4,94,201/- related to one of the petitioner’s debtors, Cambay SEZ Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Along with the Rectification Application, the petitioner had submitted a Ledger Account containing details of the TDS concerning Cambay SEZ Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
The learned Senior Standing Counsel Rutvij Patel and learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that, considering the peculiar facts, the Rectification Application could be directed to be decided within three months so that the controversy raised in the writ petition could be brought to an end.
The petitioner’s advocate, Mr. B.S. Soparkar, further requested that the competent authority considering the Rectification Application be directed to consider the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 132 taxmann.com 293 (Guj), Milan Arvindbhai Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 149 taxmann.com 190 (Guj), and Gayatri Snehal Rao Vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, reported in 168 taxmann.com 466 (Guj).
Considering the facts and submissions, the High Court directed the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), to decide the Rectification Application dated 12.03.2015 within three months. If another competent authority was responsible for deciding the application, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to place it before that authority without requiring the petitioner to file a fresh application.
The Court also directed that the petitioner should not be asked to produce additional evidence to justify the non-payment of TDS by Cambay SEZ Ltd., since the petitioner had already produced the Ledger Account submitted by Cambay SEZ Pvt. Ltd. However, if the competent authority did not have that Ledger Account, the petitioner could supply it.
Importantly, until the Rectification Application was decided, the respondent department was directed not to press for recovery of the outstanding demand reflected on the income-tax e-filing portal. The competent authorities were directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, considering the judgments referred to by the petitioner, and communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith.
The Court clarified that if an adverse order was passed, the petitioner would remain at liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Gayatri Snehal Rao Vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer (Gujarat High Court), 168 taxmann.com 466(Guj)
- Milan Arvindbhai Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Gujarat High Court), 149 taxmann.com 190 (Guj)
- Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (Gujarat High Court), 132 taxmann.com 293 (Guj)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length, it has been noticed by us that the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.03.2025 is not yet decided by the respondent-authorities. Simultaneously, the outstanding amount of Rs.7,54,560/- for the Assessment Year 2013 is still reflected in the e-filing portal of the income tax in the name of the petitioner as on 12.08.2025.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the TDS allowed as per the intimation / acknowledgment as mentioned in the Rectification Application dated 12.03.2015 was of Rs.5,17,060/-, however, the difference of 4,94,201/- is on account of one of the debtor of the petitioner namely Cambay SEZ Hotels Pvt Ltd. We have noticed that the petitioner along with the Rectification Application has also attached the Ledger Account, pointing out the details of the TDS with its debtor Cambay SEZ Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Rutvij Patel as well as learned advocate Mr. Soparkar has submitted that looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the said application may be ordered to decided within a period of three months, so that the issue/controversy raised in the present writ petition may be laid quietus.
4. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar has submitted that the competent authority before whom the Rectification Application has been filed may also be directed to consider the Judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 132 taxmann.com 293 (Guj), Milan Arvindbhai Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 149 taxmann.com 190 (Guj) and Gayatri Snehal Rao Vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer reported in 168 taxmann.com 466(Guj).
5. Under such circumstance and in light of aforesaid facts as well as submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we direct the respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3), to decide the application dated 12.03.2015 filed by the petitioner within a period of three months. In case, the Rectification Application is to be decided by any other competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax may place the said application before such authority, without asking the petitioner to file a fresh application. We further direct that the petitioner shall not be asked to produce any additional evidence compelling him to justify the non-payment of TDS amount by Cambay SEZ Ltd, since along with this application, the petitioner has already produced the Ledger Account submitted by Cambay SEZ. Pvt Ltd. However, we further clarify that in case, the competent authority is not in possession of the Ledger Account submitted by Cambay SEZ Pvt. Ltd, it will be open for the petitioner to supply the same.
6. We further direct that till the orders are passed on Rectification Application, the respondent department shall not press for the outstanding demand amount as reflected in the e-portal. Necessary orders in accordance with law shall be passed by the competent authorities by considering the aforementioned Judgments and the same shall be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. We further clarify that in case any adverse orders are passed, it will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
