Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarcitius Dungdung vs Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax, ... on 12 November, 2021
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
POOJA SHARMA 2021.11.16 23:43 CWP No.10774 of 2021 (O&M) 1 102+208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-12168-CWP-2021 in/and CWP No.10774 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.11.2021 Tarcitius Dungdung veces Petitioner versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax sesees Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN REK Present : Petitioner in person. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent. Kee AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
CM-12168-CWP-2021 1 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Rejoinder is taken on record.
CWP No.10774 of 2021 1 By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) (Annexure P-8) by which his revision against the communication dated 01.09.2017 was rejected.
2 The brief facts are that the petitioner was working as Supervisor in the HMT Ltd., Tractor Plant, Pinjore. That unit was ordered to be shut down and the petitioner received termination benefits in the form of VRS to the amount of Rs.4401887/-. He offered the entire amount as income and was accordingly taxed thereon. He later sought | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document POOJA SHARMA 2021.11.16 23:43 CWP No.10774 of 2021 (O&M) 2 refund on the grounds that the component of compensation received by him was not taxable. That having rejected he filed the petition under Section 264 of the Act, which was dismissed.
3 The primary contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petition under Section 264 of the Act was not maintainable.
4 We find merit in this argument and hold that this remedy was not available to the petitioner who could have moved an application under Section 119 of the Act mentioning therein the decision of the Madras High Court passed in WP Nos.18566, 18788, 18608 to 18610, 18789 of 2015 decided on 17.03.2017 titled as Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre (CITU) Vs. The Government of India and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kewal Krishan Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another bearing CWP No.1818 of 1995 decided on 11.10.2013 and the decision of the Supreme Court of India dismissing the SLP filed against the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the matter of Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre (supra).
5 It would also be apposite to mention some extracts from the judgment of the Madras High Court as under :-
"33. W.P.No.18608 of 2015; the petitioner in this Writ Petition is an association of officers working in HPF and the relief sought for by them is also identical. The yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category. Nevertheless, | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10774 of 2021 (O&M) 3 the Central Government does not make any distinction in its press information, dated 28.02.2014, nor do the impugned proceedings/circular, as it has extended the special benefit to all the employees of HPF. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, whatever is the interpretation given by this Court while testing the prayer made in the Writ Petitions filed by the workers would equally apply to this Writ Petition filed by the officers association."
6 In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 119 of the Act with a further observation that in case such application is made within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the application shall not be rejected on the grounds of delay. 7 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE November 12, 2021 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2021.11.16 23:43 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document