Cooperatieve Robobank Ua vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Mumbai ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11942 Bom

                                                          1           Order-WPL 10708-21.odt


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         Digitally signed
         by NIKITA
NIKITA   YOGESH
         GADGIL
YOGESH   Date:
GADGIL
                                     WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10708 OF 2021
         2021.08.26
         11:09:53
         +0530




                                               (A.Y. 2007-08)

     Cooperative Rabobank U A,
     20th Floor, Tower A,
     Peninsula Business Park,
     Senapati Bapat Marg,
     Lower Parel (West),
     Mumbai - 400 013.                                             ... Petitioner
                            Versus
     1. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT),
     Mumbai-2, having his office at
     17th Floor, Air India Building,
     Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.

     2. Union of India
     Through the Secretary,
     Department of Finance,
     Ministry of Finance,
     Government of India,
     North Block, New Delhi-110.            ... Respondents
                                   -------
     Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for
     Petitioner.
     Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for Respondents.
                                   -------

                                            CORAM     :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                                                              ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

                                     RESERVED ON      :       20TH JULY, 2021.
                                     PRONOUNCED ON    :       26TH AUGUST, 2021.
                                                      (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)




             Mugdha                                                                    1 of 4
                                      2           Order-WPL 10708-21.odt


PER COURT :-

1. We have today passed a detailed judgment in Writ

Petition No.1025 of 2021. The facts in this Petition are similar to

those in Writ Petition No.1025 of 2021, except that the Appeal of the

Tribunal in this case was restored to the Tribunal by this Court vide

order dated 14th December, 2018 in Income Tax Appeal No.1709 of

2017 with Notice of Motion No.1018 of 2018 with Income Tax Appeal

No.1708 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No.1019 of 2018 with Income

Tax Appeal No.1714 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No.1020 of 2018

with Income Tax Appeal No.1820 of 2017 with Notice of Motion

No.1021 of 2018 with Income Tax Appeal No.1713 of 2017 with

Notice of Motion No.1024 of 2018 with Income Tax Appeal No.1707

of 2017 with Notice of Motion No.1026 of 2018 relying upon the

decision dated 29th August, 2018 of this Court in Income Tax Appeal

No.1198 of 2015 with Income Tax Appeal No.260 of 2016 with

Income Tax Appeal No.264 of 2016.

2. In view of the reasons detailed in our judgment dated

26th August, 2021 in Writ Petition No.1025 of 2021, we pass the

following order :-

(i) pending Appeal ITA No.6983/Mum/2011 is a

Mugdha 2 of 4 3 Order-WPL 10708-21.odt

Revenue Appeal and the first proviso to Section 3 of

the DTVSV Act would become applicable and,

accordingly, the amount payable by Petitioner

would be 50% of the amount, viz., 50% of the

disputed tax,

(ii) there is no provision in the DTVSV Act which

authorises recovery of interest paid earlier by the

Department under Section 244A of the IT Act by

adding the same to the amount of disputed tax in

the manner sought to be done, thereby making the

addition of Rs.49,34,350/- to disputed tax in Form-

3 bad in law.

3. We, therefore, quash and set aside Form-3 dated 31st

March, 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2007-

08 as being without jurisdiction, the Respondent No.1 Designated

Authority having no power or authority to add/include this amount

to the disputed tax under the provisions of the DTVSV Act. We

direct Respondent No.1 to issue fresh Form-3 to Petitioner

determining the amount of disputed tax in accordance with the

above discussion within two weeks from the date of pronouncement

Mugdha 3 of 4 4 Order-WPL 10708-21.odt

of this order and thereafter Petitioner to make payment of the

disputed tax so determined within a period of two weeks of the

issuance of revised Form -3.

4. Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no

order as to costs.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)                        (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)




 Mugdha                                                           4 of 4