M/S. ATMA BODHODAYA SANGHAM SREE SUBHANANDA TRUST , vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9188/2024HC KeralaKLHC01089304202420 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition had no merit and was therefore dismissed. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was not estopped from withdrawing their earlier application and filing a fresh one under the correct provision. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner did not need any permission or direction from the Court to do so. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Atma Bodhodaya Sangham Sree Subhananda Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash an order (Ext.P5) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The trust had filed an application seeking exemption from income tax. However, it erroneously mentioned Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act instead of the correct provision, Section 12A(1)(c). The petitioner sought a direction to allow them to correct this mistake in their application. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and two Income Tax Officers.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to correct a mistake in their application for income tax exemption, specifically by changing the cited section from Section 10(23C)(iv) to Section 12A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had mistakenly cited Section 10(23C)(iv) instead of Section 12A(1)(c) in their application for exemption and requested the respondents to be directed to allow this correction. The petitioner relied on the principle that there should be no estoppel preventing them from withdrawing their earlier application and filing a fresh one under the correct provision, and that no court permission was required for this. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(iv),Section 12A(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9188 OF 2024 PETITIONER: M/S. ATMA BODHODAYA SANGHAM SREE SUBHANANDA TRUST , 1, CHERUKOL MAVELIKRA, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWAMY GEETHANANDAN, PIN - 690104 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON PARVATHY MENON PADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, EXEMPTION WARD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, EXEMPTION WARD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,BEACH ROAD,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001 SRI. CYRIAC TOM- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 20th day of March, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers: (i) To quash Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.

2.

The petitioner has filed an application under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, seeking exemption from payment of the income tax on the income of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that instead of filing the application under Section 12A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has wrongly mentioned the Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act, and respondents should be directed to allow the petitioner to correct the mistake in the application.

3.

There is no estoppel for the petitioner to withdraw the earlier application and file a fresh application under the relevant provision. The petitioner does not need any permission or direction from the Court for doing so. I feel this writ petition has no merit. Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9188/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF TRUST DEED OF THE PERTITIONER DTD. 16-07-1987 Exhibit P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 24-09-2021 Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 15-07-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 05-09-2022 Exhibit P5 COPYOF ORDEDR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT 24-09-2022 Exhibit P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 35333/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 06-04-2018 Exhibit P7 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO. 17323/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD.29-11-2019

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(iv)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →