Telangana High Court

M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2024

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

               *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                    AND
               *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI


                   + WRIT PETITION No.8663 OF 2022

% 25-04-2024


# M/s. BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd.
                                                  ...Petitioner
vs.


$ Union of India and another.
                                                  ... Respondents


!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya representing S. Vivek
Chnadrasekhar.
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri Vijhay K Punna


<Gist :


>Head Note :


? Cases referred
1. (1956) 56 ITR 114 (Bom)
2. (2016) 386 ITR 643 (Del)
3. (2022) 444 ITR 310
4. (1976) 104 ITR 36
5. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95
                                     2
                                                               SP,J & NTR, J
                                                              WP_8663_2022


       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                              HYDERABAD
                                  ****
                  WRIT PETITION No.8663 OF 2022
                   (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

Between:
M/s. BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd.
                                                    ...Petitioner
vs.


Union of India and another.
                                                ... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2024


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI


1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?             :


2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be
      Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?         :


3.    Whether His Lordship wishes to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?        :

                                                        ___________________
                                                         SUJOY PAUL, J


                                                        ___________________
                                                        N. TUKARAMJI, J
                                    3
                                                            SP,J & NTR, J
                                                           WP_8663_2022


              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                 WRIT PETITION No.8663 of 2022


O R D E R:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

takes exception to the order dated 23.12.2021 in F.No.DCIT-

1(1)/AAACB8316K/A.Y.2015-16/2021-22, whereby the application

preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (Act), was dismissed by assigning certain reasons.

2. The pivotal question before us is that when an assessee

erroneously or as a mistake of law, admittedly paid tax on more than

one occasion, and claims its refund under Section 154 of the Act,

whether such application can be rejected by holding that such

mistake does not fall within the ambit of 'error apparent on the face

of record'.

Background facts:

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner

filed his returns for Assessment Year 2015-16. In the said return,

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

he has paid tax relating to 'retention money', which money was

actually paid to him by the Government in the Assessment Years

2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner as an oversight

again paid the tax on that 'retention money' in the Assessment Years

2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. After having realised that he has

paid tax twice, he preferred an application under Section 154 of the

Act, for rectification of mistake before respondent No.2. The said

application came to be dismissed by order dated 23.12.2021.

Contention of the petitioner:

4. Criticising the impugned order, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that Article 265 of the Constitution of India, in no

uncertain terms makes it clear that tax cannot be levied or collected

beyond authority of law. The law permits levy of tax once on

'retention money', which has been admittedly collected in the year

2015-16. The subsequent payment of the tax for the years 2016-17,

2017-18 and 2018-19 was inconsonance with law because the

income from retention money was relating to those years. The

previous payment of tax in the year 2015-16 was by mistake and

said amount should have been refunded by invoking power under

Section 154 of the Act. Respondent No.2 committed an error in

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

rejecting the same. In support of this submission, he placed

reliance on the judgments of Bombay High Court in the case of

National Rayon Corporation Ltd vs. G.R.Bahmani, Income Tax

Officer, Companies Circle I (3), Bombay 1 and Delhi High Court in

the case of Vijay Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2. It is

argued that although, the judgment of the Delhi High Court deals

with scope and ambit of Section 264 of the Act, it is based on the

fundamental principle that a person cannot be subjected to double

taxation or imposition of tax beyond authority of law. When the

levy/deposit of tax is beyond authority of law, delay and

technicalities etc., cannot strangulate the assessee and the excess

amount so paid must be refunded.

Stand of Revenue:

5. Sri Vijhay K Punna, the learned counsel for the respondents

opposed prayer of the petitioner and placed reliance on the judgment

passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS

Educational and Welfare Trust vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax 3. He raised two fold submissions. The first is that the

error pointed out by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of

(1965) 56 ITR 114 (Bom)

(2016) 386 ITR 643 (Del)

(2022) 444 ITR 310

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

Section 154 of the Act. Secondly, the petitioner has a statutory

remedy of appeal, where he can raise all these points.

6. No other points were pressed by learned counsel for both the

parties.

7. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings:-

8. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apt to refer to Article

265 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

"Article 265: Taxes not to be imposed save by authority

of law:- No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority

of law.

9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for parties

fairly submitted that the Bombay High Court in case of National

Rayon Corporation Ltd (cited 1st supra) was dealing with Section

35 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which is pari materia to Section 154

of the Act. For ready reference, relevant portions of both Sections

are reproduced below:

Section 35 of Income Tax Act, Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1922 1961

35. Rectification of mistake.-- 154. Rectification of mistake.--

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

(1) The Commissioner or Appellate (1) With a view to rectifying any Assistant Commissioner may, at mistake apparent from the record any time within four years from the an income-tax authority referred to date of any order passed by him in in section 116 may,--

appeal or, in the case of the                  (a) amend any order passed by it
Commissioner,         in    revision                under the provisions of this
under section 33A and the Income-                   Act;
tax Officer may, at any time within            (b) amend any intimation or
four years from the date of                         deemed intimation under
any assessment order or refund                      sub-section (1) of section
order passed by him on his own                      143;
motion     rectify    any   mistake            (c) amend any intimation under
apparent from the record of the                     sub-section (1) of section
appeal,    revision, assessment   or                200A;
refund as the case may be, and                 (d) amend any intimation under
shall within the like period rectify                sub-section (1) of section
any such mistake which has                          206CB.
been brought to his notice by an
assessee:

10. The Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of

Income-Tax, Madras-1 vs. Madhurai Knitting Company 4, held

that Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and Section 154 of the

Act are pari materia.

11. The Bombay High Court in National Rayon Corporation Ltd

(cited 1st supra) at para No.8 opined as follows:

"8. The ratio decidendi of these authorities, in our opinion, is that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make an order of rectification under Section 35 of the Act depends upon the existence of a mistake apparent from the record. That mistake need not be a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It may be a mistake of fact as well as a mistake of law. A mistake becomes a mistake apparent from the record when it is a glaring,

(1976) 104 ITR 36

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

obvious or self-evident mistake. However, it is not possible to define precisely or exhaustively what is an error apparent from the record. But it can be said with certainty that a mistake which has to be discovered by a long drawn process of reasoning or examining arguments on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be a mistake or error which is apparent from the record. ..."

(Emphasis Supplied)

12. A plain reading of the above judgment makes it clear that there

cannot be any precise or exhaustive definition of 'error apparent on

the face of record'. However, it is clear that the errors of fact and

errors of law both can form basis of 'error apparent on the face of

record'. In no uncertain terms, it was made clear that no elaborate

arguments should be required to establish an error apparent on the

face of record.

13. In this backdrop, it is to be seen whether the error pointed out

by the learned counsel for petitioner falls within the four corners of

Section 154 of the Act and can be called as an error apparent on the

face of record.

14. Interestingly, respondent No.2 has assigned the following

reasons while rejecting application filed by the petitioner at para No.

3 of the impugned order dated 23.12.2021:

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

"3. The application filed by the assessee verified. The request for rectification u/s. 154 of the I.T.Act, 1961 filed by the assessee is not considered on the following grounds:

a) From the records, it is seen that the assessee has offered excess retention money in A.Y.2015-16 which was offered in subsequent years also. If such is the case, though the assessee has enough time to correct these omissions by way of filing revised return, the assessee has not availed this remedy.

b) The request made by the assessee for rectification is beyond the scope of passing modification order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

c) In year under consideration, only intimation u/s. 143(1) is passed by CPC. No order u/s. 143(3) is passed for the said year under consideration.

d) The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30.11.2015. The Assessee had the scope for filing the return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claimed the requisite reduction of income.

e) The request made by assessee for modification u/s.154 of the Act, is not mistake apparent from record. Hence, beyond the scope of Sec. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

f) Further, it is seen that the assessee had also not made any claim in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18.

g) The request made by the assessee for rectification is not an arithmetic mistake."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. The opening sentence of aforesaid Clause (a) reads "From the

records, it is seen that the assessee has offered excess retention

money in A.Y.2015-16, which was offered in subsequent years also."

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

This sentence makes it clear like noon day that (i) the authority has

perused the record and (ii) on the basis of record, he gave a finding

that assessee has offered tax on 'excess' retention money. Thus, no

elaborate arguments are needed to establish the error as respondent

No.2 himself found the same from the record about the payment of

tax in excess on the 'retention money'.

16. The Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Gupta was (cited 2nd

supra), although dealing with ambit and scope of Section 264 of the

Act, based its findings on the principle following from Article 265 of

the Constitution of India and opined that when it is not in dispute

that an amount of tax is recovered beyond the entitlement,

technicalities cannot create a road block for the assessee. Thus, as

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

fundamental reason for interference is founded upon Article 265 of

the Constitution of India. If, it could be established with accuracy

and precision that amount of tax is paid beyond permissible limit, it

falls within the ambit of error apparent on the face of record. The

only caveat, for that purpose is that no long drawn argument should

be required to establish the error and such error should be clear,

apparent and palpable.

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

17. We find support in our view from the judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and different High Courts. It is apposite to go

through the legal journey:

a) The Apex Court examined the 'levy' and 'retention' of excise duty

on the touchstone of Article 265 of Constitution and poignantly held

in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC

536 as follows:

"278. In conclusion, I hold that the Government is permitted to levy and retain only that much of excise duty which can be lawfully levied and collected under the Central Excise Act read with the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Central Excise Rules and various notifications issued from time to time. Anything collected beyond this is unlawful and cannot be retained by the Government under any pretext. The illegal levy and collection of duty violates not only the Central Excise Act and the Rules but also offends Article 265 of the Constitution of India."

b) In the case of CIT vs. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that if an assessee, due to error,

inadvertence, or because of lack of awareness, includes an amount

in their income which is exempt from income tax or not considered

as income under the law, they may inform the Assessing Officer. If

satisfied, the Assessing officer may provide necessary relief and

refund any excess tax paid.

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

c) Similarly in CIT vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971)

81 ITR 303 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court opined that mere

inclusion of income in a tax return for a specific year erroneously,

does not grant the tax department jurisdiction to tax that income for

that year if it legally does not belong to it.

d) In Balmukund Acharya vs. Deputy CIT (2009) 310 ITR 310

(Bom) the Bombay High Court affirmed that tax collection must

adhere strictly to the provisions of the law. If an assessee is over-

assessed due to a mistake, misconception, or lack of proper

guidance, authorities under the law are obligated to assist him and

ensure that only due taxes are collected.

e) In Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT (2004) 269

ITR 1 (Bom), the Bombay High Court emphasized that no 'estoppel'

can arise against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India

expressly lays down that taxes can only be levied or collected

through the authority of law. Hence, 'acquiescence' cannot deprive a

party of rightful relief when taxes are levied or collected without legal

authority.

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

f) A similar issue was addressed by the Jammu & Kashmir High

Court in Smt. Sneh Lata Jain vs. CIT [2004] 192 CTR (J&K) 50,

wherein, a return of income was filed by an assessee without

claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act and the same was

processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Upon noticing the error,

the assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.

The Commissioner rejected the petition, contending that since a

return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act was accepted, revisional

powers couldn't be invoked for claims not made in the return. The

assessee then filed a writ petition challenging the order of the

Commissioner. It was thereby held by the High Court as under:

" Though the assessing authority was not aware of the purchase of the property by the petitioner and proceeded on the basis of the admitted facts disclosed in the return. However, the revisional authority could not be oblivious of its duty to accept the contention of the assessee when the facts were brought to its notice about the capital gain being not chargeable to tax under law. What to say of its duty to advice the assessee the revisional authority rejected the contention of the petitioner only on technical grounds. When the substantive law confers a benefit on the assessee under a statute, it cannot be taken away by the adjudicatory authority on mere technicalities. It is settled proposition of law that no tax can be levied or recovered without authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 114 of the State Constitution imposes an embargo on imposition and collection of tax if the same is without authority of law. Admittedly, on the basis of facts disclosed before the revisional authorities and this Court, the petitioner is not liable to tax on the capital gain. Once it is found that the petitioner has no tax liability, the respondents cannot be permitted to levy the tax and collect

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

the same in contravention to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides a constitutional safeguard on levy and collection of tax. It is true that this Court is not to act as Court of appeal while exercising the writ jurisdiction, but at the same time where the admitted facts disclosed non- exercise of jurisdiction by an adjudicatory authority and a citizen is subjected to tax not payable by him, interference by this Court is warranted. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reassess the taxable income of the petitioner, by taking into consideration the benefit available to her under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act and pass appropriate order."

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. So far, the question to relegate the petitioner to avail remedy of

appeal is concerned, suffice it to note that in this case, there exists

no disputed question of fact. The only question that needs

determination relates to interpretation and scope of Section 154 of

the Act. In this backdrop, no useful purpose would be served in

relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. In this

regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs. Excise and Taxation

Officer-cum-Assessing Authority 5, wherein at para No.8, it is held

as follows:

"8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India v. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court

2023 SCC OnLine SC 95

SP,J & NTR, J WP_8663_2022

could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available."

(Emphasis Supplied)

19. In the factual backdrop of present case, where singular

necessary fact was admitted one, we do not see any reason to relgate

the petitioner to prefer appeal.

20. In view of forgoing analysis, in our judgment, respondent No.2

has erred in holding that the error shown above does not fall within

the ambit of 'error apparent on the face of record' and consequently,

cannot be corrected under Section 154 of the Act. The view taken by

the learned respondent No.2 is hyper technical in nature and runs

contrary to the scheme flowing from Article 265 of the Constitution

of India.

21. So far the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case