Cooperative Rabobank U A, 20[Th] Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. … v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Mumbai-2, Having His Office At 17[Th] Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

1 Order-WP 1027-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYDigitallysigned byNIKITANIKITAYOGESHORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONYOGESHGADGILGADGILDate:2021.08.2611:10:18+0530WRIT PETITION NO.1027 OF 2021(A.Y. 2005-06) Cooperative Rabobank U A,20[th] Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West),Mumbai – 400 013.… PetitionerVersus1. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT),Mumbai-2, having his office at17[th] Floor, Air India Building,Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 2. Union of IndiaThrough 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 forPetitioner.Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for Respondents.-------CORAM:SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ANDABHAY AHUJA, JJ. RESERVED ON:20TH JULY, 2021. PRONOUNCED ON : 26TH AUGUST, 2021.(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) 1 of 3 2 Order-WP 1027-21.odt PER COURT :-1.We have today passed a detailed judgment in WritPetition No.1025 of 2021. Since the facts in this Petition are similarto the facts in Writ Petition No.1025 of 2021, it would not benecessary for us to deal with them here again. 2.In view of the reasons detailed in our judgment dated26[th] August, 2021 in Writ Petition No.1025 of 2021, we pass thefollowing order:- (i) pending Appeal ITA No.5056/Mum/2010 is aRevenue Appeal and the first proviso to Section 3 ofthe DTVSV Act would become applicable and,accordingly, the amount payable by Petitionerwould be 50% of the amount, viz., 50% of thedisputed tax, (ii) there is no provision in the DTVSV Act whichauthorises recovery of interest paid earlier by theDepartment under Section 244A of the IT Act byadding the same to the amount of disputed tax inthe manner sought to be done, thereby making theaddition of Rs.1,40,86,466/- to disputed tax inForm-3 bad in law. 3 Order-WP 1027-21.odt 3.We, therefore, quash and set aside Form-3 dated 26[th]March, 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2005-06 as being without jurisdiction, the Respondent No.1 DesignatedAuthority having no power or authority to add/include this amountto the disputed tax under the provisions of the DTVSV Act. Wedirect Respondent No.1 to issue fresh Form-3 to Petitionerdetermining the amount of disputed tax in accordance with theabove discussion within three weeks from the date ofpronouncement of this order and thereafter Petitioner to makepayment of the disputed tax so determined within a period of twoweeks of the issuance of revised Form -3. 4.Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be noorder as to costs. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) 3 of 3