M/S GEETHANJALI EFFECTIVE REALTY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. SRI P RAVINDRA PAI

Judgment

#1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE -1(1), 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032 REP BY DR VIJAYAKUMAR M D.

#2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -TDS 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.

#3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS 4TH FLOOR, H M T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032. (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DECLARATION THAT THE LEGISLATURE BY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 191, 201, 43B, 40(a)(ia) RWS. IT ACT HAS ALLOWED ADDITIONAL TIME TO THE 139 OF THE DEPOSITOR TO DEPOSIT TDS BEYOND RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE IT ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the legislature by subsequent amendment to Sections 191, 201, 43B, 40(a) (ia) rws 139 of the IT Act has allowed additional time to the depositor to deposit TDS beyond Rule 30 of the IT Rules during the previous year before date of filing the return of income U/s. 139 of the IT Act. b) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing

22.12.2023 bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059018326(1) Annexure-D - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR u/s. 279(1) of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent. c) Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem to grant facts and circumstances of the present case.”

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

#3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents had passed identical orders under Section 276B r/w 278B of the Income Tax for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were tried by the petitioners along with other petitioners in W.P.No.24937/2022 and 24938/2022 and connected matters in which this Court vide final order dated 31.01.2024 set aside the orders impugned therein and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

#4. It is submitted that the present petition relates to the Assessment year 2014-15 and by applying the doctrine of parity that since the aforesaid petition in W.P.No.24937/2022 and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR W.P.No.24938/2022 were in respect of the very same petitioners, the order impugned in the present petition at Annexure – D dated

22.12.2023 also deserves to be set aside and matter remitted back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

#5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

#6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners along with others approached this Court in W.P.No.24937/2022 and W.P.No.24938/2022 and connected matters in relation to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18,

which were allowed and disposed of by this Court vide order dated

31.01.2024 as hereunder: “In W.P.No.24901/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)C-27/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent."

28.02.2018 In W.P.No.24922/2022, petitioners seek following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2016-17 passed by the third respondent."

25.06.2018 In W.P.No.24936/2022, petitioners seek following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent."

28.02.2018 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR In W.P.No.24937/2022, petitioners seek following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2016-17 passed by the third respondent."

10.10.2018 In W.P.No.24938/2022, petitioners seek following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing Annexure-J No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent."

10.10.2018 In W.P.No.24939/2022, petitioners seek following reliefs: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2017-18 passed by the third respondent."

12.11.2018 In W.P.No.24940/2022, the petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing bearing Annexure-J No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent."

25.06.2018

#2. Heard Sri M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Y.V. Ravi Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-revenue and perused the material on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR

#3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned orders in order to point out that the return of income declaring payment of entire TDS amount the periods 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014;

01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015; 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015;

01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016; 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015;

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 respectively, with interest was within the extended period of the amended provisions of Section 139 r/w Section 201(1) and Section 43B(a) and Section 40(a)(i-a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’). It was submitted that without taking into consideration the amended provisions and the extended period, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 279 of the I.T.Act erroneously holding the petitioners – assessees committed default in payment of TDS under Section 200 r/w Rule 30 of the I.T. Rules and as such, the petitioners having deposited the entire TDS amount together with interest as per the amended provisions and the extended period and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) M/s. Century Real Estate Vs.DCIT - Crl.P.3321/2022 dated: 15.09.2022; (ii) CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., - (2010) 1 SCC 489; (iii) Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT - (2022) SCC Online SC 1423; O R D E R (i) Criminal Petitions are allowed in part. ( i i ) T h e O r d e r s o f s a n c t i o n d a t e d 2 8 - 0 2 - 2 0 1 8 , 25.06.2018, 03.07.2018

10.10.2018 issued b y t h e Co mmi s s io n e r o f I n c o me - Ta x (T DS ) , Bangalore as also the cognizance taken by the Special Court for Economic Offices, Bangalore C.C.Nos.94/2018,140/2019, - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR and 115/2019, impugned respective criminal petitions, stand quashed. (iii) Matters are remitted back to the hands of the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS) to re- examine according of sanction for prosecuting the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 276B read with 278B of t h e I n c o m e T a x A c t , b e a r i n g i n m i n d t h e observations made in the course of the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

#12. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate the Principal Commissioner has not taken into account the amended deeming provisions which provide for extension of time nor ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra. Further, in relation to the very same assessees, this Court has set aside the criminal prosecution and remitted the matters back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexure-J and remit the matters back to the concerned respondents 2 and 3 for reconsideration afresh, bearing in mind the amended deeming provisions of the I.T.Act and the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in accordance with law. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR

#13. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) All the writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders at Annexure-J dated

28.02.2018,

25.06.2018,

28.02.2018,

10.10.2018,

10.10.2018, 12.11.2018 and 25.06.2018 respectively are hereby set aside. (iii) The matters are remitted back to the concerned respondents 2 and 3 reconsideration afresh accordance with law, bearing in mind the amended deeming provisions of the I.T.Act and the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra in the body of this order. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to produce additional pleadings, documents, judgments etc., which shall be considered by the concerned respondents 3 and 4 while passing orders afresh after hearing the petitioners. (v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.”

#7. As can be seen from the aforesaid order, the orders impugned therein were set aside and matter remitted back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh. Hence, by applying the doctrine of parity, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:53572 WP No. 3854 of 2024 HC-KAR

#8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – D dated

22.12.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the amended deeming provisions of the IT Act and the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court referred to in W.P.No.24937/2022 and W.P.No.24938/2022 and connected matters. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to produce additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by the 3rd respondent while passing orders afresh after hearing the petitioners. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31