Supreme Court considers the court’s decision to repeal the provision of income tax law to be correct

Supreme Court (File Photo)

Supreme Court (File Photo)

A provision of section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not allow the postponement order given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the tax assessment made by a taxpayer of the Income Tax Department beyond 365 days.

new Delhi. The Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to partially repeal a provision of the Income Tax Act. This provision does not allow the postponement of tax assessment to extend beyond 365 days. The adjournment is not carried forward even though the taxpayer is not in any way responsible for the delay in hearing the appeal in the tribunal. The High Court termed this provision as “arbitrary and biased”.

A provision of section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not allow the postponement order given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the tax assessment made by a taxpayer of the Income Tax Department beyond 365 days. Of course, there is no reason for any delay in appeal or hearing on behalf of the taxpayer, even then there is a provision to extend the postponement beyond 365 days.

Also Read- Pakistani Fans Celebrate Babar Azam’s Becoming Number 1, Virat Kohli Back!

The Delhi High Court repealed the third provision of section 254 (2A). In the third provision, the postponement order has not been allowed to extend beyond 365 days, despite the taxpayer not being responsible for the delay. After the fresh order, the adjournment order of the ITAT will not automatically end after 365 days if there is no delay from the taxpayer. The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman upheld the verdict of the Delhi High Court. , “There is no doubt that the third provision of the aforesaid section of the Income Tax Act introduced through the Finance Act 2008 is both unilateral and discriminatory, so it is liable to be revoked as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” ”

The bench said that in the given decision it has been rightly said that those who are unequal have been treated as equal. In the third provision, no difference has been made between the taxpayers who are responsible for the delay in the process and those who are not responsible for the delay.

Nayyamurthy Nariman has said in the judgment that the purpose of the third provision of section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act emphasizes speedy disposal of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. There can be no doubt. Especially in cases where adjournment has been given in favor of taxpayers. But this type of purpose cannot be unilateral and discriminatory in itself.
(Disclaimer: This news has been published directly from the Syndicate feed. It has not been edited by the News18Hindi team.)




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *