Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73 (1), Delhiand Others

$~104 to 106, 72, 89 to 94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 8590/2022 CELERITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD...... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73 (1), DELHIAND OTHERS..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8591/2022 CELERITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73 (1) DELHIAND OTHERS..... Respondents ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8592/2022 ATS HOUSING PVT. LTD. ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73 (1) DELHIAND OTHERS..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8440/2022 & CM APPL.25465/2022ATS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73 1 DELHIAND OTHERS ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. + W.P.(C) 8446/2022 & CM APPL.25477/2022 ATS REAL ESTATE BUILDERS PVT LTD..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73 -1 DELHIAND OTHERS..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. + W.P.(C) 8471/2022 & CM APPL.25539/2022 ATS HOUSING PVT. LTD...... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI& ORS...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8473/2022 & CM APPL.25541/2022 ATS INFRABUILD PVT LTD ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73- 1 DELHIAND OTHERS ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8476/2022 & CM APPL.25544/2022 ATS REAL ESTATE BUILDERS PVT. LTD...... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI& ORS...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8495/2022 & CM APPL.25574/2022 ATS BUILDLINE PVT. LTD. ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI& ORS...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. +W.P.(C) 8496/2022 & CM APPL.25575/2022 ATS DREAMZONE PVT. LTD...... Petitioner Through:Mr.Yogesh Jagia, Advocate withMr.Nitesh Jain and Mr.RishabhNangia, Advocates. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI& ORS...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. %Date of Decision: 19[th]July, 2022 CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMOHAN, J (Oral): J U D G M E N T 1.By way of the present writ petitions, Petitioners seek directions to theRespondent No.2 to rectify Forms 3 issued on 22[nd]April, 2021 and to issueForms 5 post filing of Forms 4 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act(‘DTVSV Act’). 2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that on 26[th]March, 2021, thePetitionersfileddeclarationsinForms1and2electronically butinadvertently declared the amounts paid by various challans excludinginterest component. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 73(1), DELHI& ORS...... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. %Date of Decision: 19[th]July, 2022 CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMOHAN, J (Oral): J U D G M E N T 1.By way of the present writ petitions, Petitioners seek directions to theRespondent No.2 to rectify Forms 3 issued on 22[nd]April, 2021 and to issueForms 5 post filing of Forms 4 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act(‘DTVSV Act’). 2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that on 26[th]March, 2021, thePetitionersfileddeclarationsinForms1and2electronically butinadvertently declared the amounts paid by various challans excludinginterest component. 3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that Respondent afteraccepting Forms 1 and 2 in all the cases issued Forms 3 on 22[nd]April, 2021whereincreditforthetaxesdepositedwerenotallowedforthereason ‘mismatched’ and in two writs 8476/2022 and 8447/2022 no reasonswere assigned for not allowing credit for the taxes paid. Petitionersfiled representations on 24[th]September, 2021 to rectify Forms 3 byallowing credit for taxes already deposited and subsequently attempted tofile Forms 4 on 27[th]November, 2021 but the same were not acceptedshowing an error message that “date of deposit cannot be before the filingdate of Forms 1 and 2”. 4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners againfiled representations dated 14[th]December, 2021 before Respondent No.1which were declined by order/communication dated 7[th]April, 2022, whereinRespondent No.1 declined credit of challans paid on the ground that taxeshad been deposited under the minor head “200 instead of 400”. 5.On the last date of hearing, Mr.Puneet Rai, learned counsel for therespondents, had taken time to obtain instructions. Today, Mr.Puneet Rai,learned counsel for the respondents, states that Assessing Officer (TDS) istaking steps to correct the Code of the Challans but she is facing difficulty,as the software is not permitting the challan Code correction at theAssessing Officer level and will seek assistance from CPC/Systems team.He states that in the event the software does not permit Code correction,then it would be difficult to give relief to the petitioner. 6.A perusal of the paper books reveals that there is no dispute that thepetitioners deposited the taxes, however, the mistake which the petitionershave committed is that they had deposited the taxes under the minor head‘200’ instead of ‘400’. 7.In the opinion of this Court, as the petitioners have paid the taxes,they should be given the credit for the challans paid in Form 3 under the saidAct. The order/communication dated 7[th]April, 2022 rejecting credit of taxesdeposited under the DTVSV Act on the hyper-technical ground that challanshave been deposited under the minor head ‘200’ instead of ‘400’ is unfair,illegal and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act, 2020. 8.If the only impediment in the way of granting relief sought by thepetitioner is the software, the same ought to be suitably modified to acceptthe applications of the petitioners. One of us, (Manmohan, J) in ShaluNigam & Anr. Vs. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr. 2016 SCCOnLine Del 3023 has held, “In any case, technology is intended to ease andfacilitate transactions and cannot be the basis for creating and defeatinganybody’s legal rights”. After all, the software has to be tailor-madeaccording to the needs, aspirations and legal rights of the tax payers and not that the tax payers’ legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance withthe software being used by the Tax Department. 9.Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to correct thepayment heads, record the credit of taxes deposited and to issue revisedForms 3 within four weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner shall file Forms 4within two weeks. 10.Withtheaforesaiddirection,thepresentwritpetitionsandapplications stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J JULY 19, 2022TS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J