The Supreme Court has held that the technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed that the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) shall also take necessary steps for rectifying the software as the issue may not be resolved by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Background
The petitioner/assessee has filed the Special Leave Petition arising out of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the imposition of surcharge on Rs. 1.57 Crores and demanding Rs. 2.01 Crores for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The reason for the dismissal of the Writ Petition is that the petitioner can avail an alternative remedy.
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 department 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 proceedings.
During the pendency of the present proceedings, there is yet another demand notice 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 department contended that the error is occurring as the Central Processing Centre (CPC) has not adopted the mechanism of deleting excess calculation as it is programmed to calculate and raise a demand.
Read More: CBDT Extends 7 Days Time For Filing Of Audit Reports For AY 2024-25
Conclusion
The Supreme Court observed that the technological impediment cannot be a reason for harassing an assessee year after year. Immediate steps must be taken by the Revenue to upgrade the software or take such other steps as may be necessary to ensure that such mistake does not occur in future.
The court while disposing of the SLP directed the department 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.
Case Title: Sunil Bakht V/S Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc & Anr
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10305/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Robin Ratnakar David
Counsel for the Respondent: S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G.
Decision Date: 24-09-2024
