KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28909/2013HC KeralaKLHC01072094201315 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to produce audited accounts and rectify the defect in its return for assessment year 1997-98. Deficiency letters were issued, and the petitioner sought extensions, but the audited accounts were produced significantly after the last date for filing rectified returns and after the AO had already declared the return invalid. The Court found no patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the original, appellate, or revisional authorities. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner's contentions could not be accepted, and the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation (Keltron), a Government Company, filed its return for assessment year 1997-98 with provisional accounts due to a delay in auditor appointment. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the return as invalid under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, via an intimation dated 19.02.1999. Keltron subsequently filed audited accounts on 26.09.2002, seeking rectification and completion of assessment. Appeals and revisions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the revisional authority were dismissed on technical grounds, including pendency of appeals and the invalidity of the original return. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and direct completion of assessment on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has pursued alternative remedies of appeal and revision before the Income Tax authorities? 2. Whether the order treating the return for assessment year 1997-98 as invalid under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable, considering the delay in filing audited accounts? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the rejection of appeals and revisions were on technicalities, and its contentions on merits were not considered. They contended that the delay in filing audited accounts was due to the appointment of auditors by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the BIFR proceedings initiated in 2002 should be considered. They sought to have the audited accounts accepted and the assessment completed on merits, allowing carry forward of losses. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to rectify the defect in the return. Deficiency letters were issued, and the petitioner sought extensions, but the audited accounts were produced long after the last date for filing rectified returns (31.03.1999) and after the AO's intimation of invalidity. The revenue argued that no steps could be taken thereafter, and the rejection of revision was legal and valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(9),Section 264,Section 44A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was rejected, since Exhibit

DATED 21.6.12 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH. P7 EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 25.7.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.5.11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9 EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE PETITIONERS LETTER DATED 23.5.13 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.367 DATED 26.5.1983 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11 EXHIBIT P11. COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.8.13 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

More judgments on Section 139(9)

All 234 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →