DR. N UTHAMAN, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27545/2023HC KeralaKLHC01060392202320 September 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, directed the petitioner to file a physical copy of his rectification application before the 1st respondent within ten days from the date of the order. The Court further directed that this application shall be considered and an order in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1st respondent expeditiously. Pending the decision on the rectification application by the 1st respondent, all proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Exhibit P-3) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific issue regarding the merits of the rectification itself was decided, as the focus was on procedural compliance and ensuring consideration of the application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. N Uthaman, filed his income tax return for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 on July 17, 2018. He received an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act from the 2nd respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru) on November 20, 2018. Subsequently, on January 15, 2019, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act with the 2nd respondent, supported by an e-filing acknowledgment. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider his rectification request and to restrain the respondents from enforcing demand proceedings pursuant to the Section 143(1) intimation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's rectification request dated January 15, 2019, for AY 2018-19, and pass an order thereon after affording a hearing, as per the petitioner's prayer for a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his rectification application filed on January 15, 2019, has not been decided to date, and sought a direction for its consideration. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Centralised Processing Centre in Bengaluru does not have a record of the rectification application, and the website does not show any pending application. However, the revenue offered that if the petitioner files the application physically before the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer) within ten days, it would be considered irrespective of the expired limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27545 OF 2023 PETITIONER: DR. N UTHAMAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. N. VASU, 10/345 B, NEDUVACHALIL HOUSE, KARANTHOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673571. BY ADV. SRI. DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT SMT. K.L ANGEL MARY SMT. FIDHA NAVAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN – 560500. BY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM – SC - IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP (C) NO. 27545 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- WP(C) No.27545 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2023

JUDGMENT

1.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs; A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 rectification request dated 15.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent for AY 2018-19 within a time frame, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. B. To issue a writ of mandamus or nay other writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from enforcing demand and other proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 Intimation order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act,dated 20.11.2018 for AY 2018-19. AND C. Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2.

Petitioner had filed return of his income on 17.07.2018 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner received intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act by the 2nd

WP (C) NO. 27545 OF 2023 3 respondent on 20.11.2018. After receipt of the said communication, the petitioner has filed rectification application dated 15.01.2019 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The said rectification application was e-filed in the Income Tax Portal. The petitioner has placed on record the e-filing acknowledgment as Exhibit P-5. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said rectification application was filed on 15.01.2019, but till date no decision has been taken.

4.

Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the assessment order as well as the rectification applications are considered at the Centralised Processing Centre situated at Bangalore. The said Centre does not have record of the said rectification application and the website of the Centre does not show any such pending rectification application on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that if the petitioner files the rectification application within a period of ten days from today before the 1st respondent physically, his application shall be WP (C) NO. 27545 OF 2023 4 considered irrespective of the limitation period which has already expired. This submission has been made by Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the basis of the instructions received from the respondents.

5.

Considering the instruction on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is granted ten days time from today to file rectification application before the 1st respondent physically and the said rectification application shall be considered and order in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1st respondent expeditiously. Till the rectification application is decided by the 1st respondent, all proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P-3 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. With the above directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP (C) NO. 27545 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27545/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF INCOME COMPUTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DATED 17.07.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 17.07.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST BEARING RECTIFICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 408834760150119 DATED 15.01.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR RECEIPT OF THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09. 11. 2001

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →