Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the order passed the Delhi High Court wherein the Court dismissed the writ petition questioning the imposition of surcharge on Rs. 1.57 Crores and demanding Rs. 2.01 Crores for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 on the ground that the petitioner can avail an alternative remedy, the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ, said that technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year. Immediate steps must be taken by Revenue to upgrade the software or take such other steps as may be necessary to ensure that such a mistake does not occur in future. Further, the Revenue was directed to take immediate steps and communicate the order of withdrawal of the excess surcharge amount within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
The Court noted that for the previous Assessment Year 2021-2022, a similar imposition of surcharge was carried in judicial review and the High Court by its order dated 21-03-2023 allowed the Writ Petition in view of the submission of the Revenue agreeing to remit the amount of Rs. 1.33 Crores.
The Revenue submitted that even in the present proceedings (Assessment Year 2022-2023), there is rectification of the excess surcharge, and the amount was remitted to the petitioner on 06-06-2024. This statement concludes the lis in the present proceedings.
The Court indicated that during the pendency of the present proceedings, there is yet another demand notice dated 28-05-2024 raised for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, as per which surcharge computed at 37% and a demand of Rs. 62,85,070/- has been raised.
The Revenue submitted that this error is occurring as the Central Processing Centre (CPC) has not adopted the mechanism of deleting excess calculation as it is programmed to so calculate and raise a demand.
The Court forewarned that technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year. Immediate steps must be taken by Revenue to upgrade the software or take such other steps as may be necessary to ensure that such a mistake does not occur in future.
Concerning the present case, the Court mentioned that the dispute has already been resolved and the amount is said to have been remitted on 06-06-2024. However, for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, the Revenue was directed to take immediate steps and communicate the order of withdrawal of the excess surcharge amount within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The Central Board for Direct Taxes was also directed to take necessary steps for rectifying the software as the issue may not be resolved by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10305/2024 Appellants : Sunil Bakht Respondents : Asst. Director of Income Tax | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, Adv., Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR, Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Adv. ,Ms. Achalika Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Nihar Baijal, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR ,Mr. H R Rao, Adv., Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv., Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv. |
CORAM :
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Sandeep Mehta, J.
The post appeared first on .