Case Law Details
Magnolia Mayura CHS Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Petitioner’s appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on 31st March, 2016. The Petitioner’s application admittedly made on 9th August, 2016 after the Appeal was dismissed. This application came to be rejected on 22nd September, 2016, as there was no appeal pending. The order of CIT(A) which the Petitioner seeks to set aside, is an order dated 31st March, 2016. Thus, the Petition suffers from laches as the orders were passed as far back in 2016 and relief is being sought in 2019. Besides, the Scheme 2016 under which the Petitioner seeks benefit,is also not shown to be available today.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction to the Respondent i.e. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to allow Petitioner’s application dated 21st July, 2016 under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 (the Scheme, 2016). It also seeks the setting aside of order dated 31st March, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)], confirming penalty for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12.
2. The Assessing Office had, by an order dated 27th June, 2014, imposed penalty upon the Petitioner for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. The Petitioner had filed an appeal on 25th July, 2014 to the CIT(A) against the orders of the Assessing Officer, imposing penalty for the above Assessment Years.
3. The Finance Bill 2016 introduced the Scheme, 2016 and the Same came to be passed as part of the Finance Act, 2016. The aforesaid scheme sought to settle the dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue on the Petitioner paying a partial amount of the tax / penalty imposed upon it. This Scheme, 2016 was effective from 1st June, 2016.
4. In view of the above, the Appellant’s by a letter dated 28th March, 2016 sought an adjournment as it desired to take the benefit of Scheme, 2016 which would be enacted shortly. However, the CIT(A) did not accept the request and by an order dated 31st March, 2016, dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner on 9th August, 2016 filed an application before the authority under the Scheme, 2016, seeking its benefit. However, by an order dated 22nd September, 2016, the same came to be dismissed, as there was no appeal pending on the date when the Petitioner made an application under the Scheme, 2016. Thus, not satisfying the qualifying condition to avail of its benefit.
5. It is the Petitioner’s submission that, the CBDT ad issued a direction to the CIT(A) on 30th March, 2019, as it evident from Circular No. 33 of 2016 dated 12th September, 2016 that, where the Appellant expresses its intent to avail of the benefit of the Scheme 2016, then the appeals should be kept pending. Thus, it is submitted that, order dated 31st March, 2016 passed by the CIT(A), be set aside and a direction be given to the CBDT to entertain the Petitioner’s application under the Scheme, 2016.
6. We find that the Petitioner’s appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on 31st March, 2016. The Petitioner’s application admittedly made on 9th August, 2016 after the Appeal was dismissed. This application came to be rejected on 22nd September, 2016, as there was no appeal pending. The order of CIT(A) which the Petitioner seeks to set aside, is an order dated 31st March, 2016. Thus, the Petition suffers from laches as the orders were passed as far back in 2016 and relief is being sought in 2019. Besides, the Scheme 2016 under which the Petitioner seeks benefit,is also not shown to be available today.
7. In the above view, no occasion to examine the merits of the Petitioner’s claim, can arise. Therefore, only on the ground of laches/ delay, the Petition is dismissed
