Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central v. M/S Dilip Buildcon Ltd. And Another

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 1 - --Jabalpur, Dated : 10072019 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel for therespondent No.1. I.A.No.3498/2019 for recalling order dated 5.3.2019, isdismissed as not pressed, as the learned counsel for therespondent submits that he does not wish to press thisapplication. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved byorder dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Revenue submitsthat the Settlement Commission has wrongly alloweddeductions under Section 80-IA (4) of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) without taking intoconsideration the fact that the said claim for deduction couldhave been considered only in case the return of income hadbeen filed on or before the due date specified under Section139 (1) of the Act. It is submitted that as the returns were filedafter the period prescribed by law, therefore, the claim fordeduction could not have been allowed or considered by theSettlement Commission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it isobserved that the issue of filing of returns after the dateprescribed by law was taken up by the respondent before thisCourt by filing W.P.No.21190/2015 and this Court by orderdated 30.6.2016, allowed the petition setting aside the orderpassed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and condoned thedelay on the part of the respondent in filing returns.Admittedly, the order passed by this Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P.No.21190/2015 has attained finality as the same has not been THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6727/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. M/s Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and another) - 2 - assailed or challenged by the petitioner before any higherCourt. In such circumstances and in view of the order passed bythis Court on 30.6.2016 in W.P. No.21190/2015, the issueregarding delay in filing the return does not survive and hasbeen finally settled in favour of the respondent. In view of the order passed by this Court, the contentionof the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SettlementCommission has wrongly allowed deductions under Section 80-IA (4) of the Act, without taking into consideration the aspect ofdelay, has no merit and does not survive for either beingraised or adjudicated. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contendsthat the respondent was only involved in construction of roadsas a contractor and, therefore, as he was only a workscontractor, the benefit of the provisions relating to workundertaken for infrastructural development would not havebeen availed by the respondent and has wrongly been allowedby the Settlement Commission. From a perusal of the order, it is apparent that theSettlement Commission has discussed these aspectsextensively in its order from paragraph 13 onwards and hasrecorded a finding in that regard in paragraph 13.4. Theaforesaid finding in favour of the respondent, is a finding offact and does not warrant any interference by this Court in writproceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by thepetitioner, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed. (R. S. JHA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE