{"id":13007,"date":"2020-10-14T09:27:28","date_gmt":"2020-10-14T09:27:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vijaykumar-satramdas-lakhani-v-cbdt-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2021-03-28T12:37:34","modified_gmt":"2021-03-28T07:07:34","slug":"vijaykumar-satramdas-lakhani-v-cbdt-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/vijaykumar-satramdas-lakhani-v-cbdt-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani v. CBDT ( 2020) 195 DTR 121\/ 317 CTR 249\/ (2021) 276 Taxman 470 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 26.02.2020, petitioner filed an application in Form No.13 requesting respondent \u00a0\u00a0to issue a certificate for non-deduction of tax under S. \u00a0197 of the Act on interest income received from Lakhani Builders Private Limited. \u00a0ignoring the said Ordinance, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued an order dated 03.04.2020 under section 119 of the Act as per which in the case of pending applications for lower or nil rate of deduction of TDS under sections 195 and 197 of the Act or applications filed by buyers \/ licensees \/ lessees under section 206-C(9) of the Act, the applicant shall intimate vide <\/em>email the concerned assessing officer about pendency of such application for the financial year 2019-2020 whereafter the assessing officer shall dispose off the application by 27.04.2020 and communicate the decision to the applicant regarding issuance \/ rejection of certificate vide <\/em>email. \u00a0Following such order dated 03.04.2020, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 10.04.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit certain additional details. It is stated that petitioner could not reply to the said notice as the second phase of lockdown was in place and his movements were restricted. This was also because the details sought for were kept in the office of the petitioner which is separate from his residence. \u00a0When the petitioner logged in to the TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System (TRACES) on 30.07.2020, he found that the status of his application was shown as \u2018rejected.\u00a0 Aggrieved by the order the petition filed writ petition before High Court .\u00a0Allowing the petition the Honourable\u00a0\u00a0 High Court \u00a0quashed the order of rejection passed in the case of the appellant where ignoring the provisions of *Section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020\u2019 * whereby the time limits prescribed in the Income Tax Act 1961, falling within the period from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 stood extended. The court noted that *It is well settled that an ordinance made by the President is not an executive act. Power to promulgate ordinance is legislative in nature* . An ordinance issued by the President is as much a law as an Act passed by the Parliament. President\u2019s power of legislation by an ordinance is co- extensive with the power of Parliament to make legislation. The Court thus rejected Department\u2019s argument that the said ordinance did not extend the date for compliance of any application seeking information in response to the application u\/s 197. The order of rejection was set aside and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the application on merit with in period of six weeks . ( WP No\u00a0 5837 of 2020 dt 30 -9 -2020) (AY. 2020-21)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/F200100058372020_2-2.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate \u2013 Order of rejection application was quashed – An ordinance made by the President is not an executive act- Power to promulgate ordinance is legislative in nature.-Directed the Assessing officer to decide the application on merit with in period of six weeks . [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 , S 3, S. 119 , Art , 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3nN","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13007"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13007\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16112,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13007\/revisions\/16112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}