Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Application No. TN/CN 01/05-06/5/IT filed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent had failed to pay the admitted liability in terms of Section 245D (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner there was a shortfall in the payment of tax on the admitted liability.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 245D of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Rectification of mistake - The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Application No. TN/CN 01/05-06/5/IT filed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent had failed to pay the admitted liability in terms of Section 245D (2A) of the Act, 1961. According to the petitioner there was a shortfall in the payment of tax on the admitted liability. Therefore submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent was without jurisdiction. After amendment, Sub-clause (ii) to sub-section (2A) was substituted. An application filed under sub-section (1) of section 245C before the 1st day of June, 2007 shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with if the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest was paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007 if an order under the provisions of subsection (1) of the said section as it stood prior to their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 was not made before the 1st day of June, 2007. Since no order of admission was passed prior to the aforesaid date, the application shall be deemed to have been admitted if the an applicant pays the additional amount of tax on the additional amount admitted in the application before 31st day of July, 2007. In the present case, there is payment of additional amount of tax before 31st. There are several disputed questions of fact which have been glossed over by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission while settling be case of the 2nd respondent vide impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is quashed and the case is remanded back to the 1st respondent Settlement Commission to pass a fresh order after considering the objections of the petitioner filed under rule 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules 1997. CIT V/s INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION - [2020] 425 ITR 568 (MAD)