MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.984, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/23607/2024HC KeralaKLHC01118939202402 August 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to take a decision on the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court mandated that this decision must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court considered the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, which was primarily for a direction to decide the pending application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Marayamuttom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-decision on its application for condonation of delay in filing returns for the assessment year 2022-23. The Income Tax Department's Standing Counsel informed the court that the jurisdiction for considering the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had shifted due to monetary limits. The application was initially with the Principal Commissioner, then transferred to the Chief Commissioner, and subsequently to the Principal Chief Commissioner. A report was called for on July 1, 2024, and prepared on July 31, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing returns for AY 2022-23. The petitioner argues that the application has been pending without a decision and seeks a direction for expeditious disposal. The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, explained the procedural transfers of jurisdiction and indicated that a report has been prepared, implying the matter is progressing. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the direction but provided context for the delay. The core issue is the delay in adjudication of the condonation application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 23607 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.984, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SINDHU S.,AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SANTHI NILAYAM, MARAYAMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695124 BY ADVS. BABU S. NAIR SMITHA BABU P.A.RAJESH PRANAV K.P.DHANEESH SIDDHARTH KARUN PISHARODY RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO.2(2), AYAKKAR BHAVAN,KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR G.KEERTHIVAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 23607 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing returns for the assessment year 2022-23, has not been decided thus far.

2.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that based on the orders issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the jurisdiction of officers competent to consider the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 depends on the monetary limits and the case of the petitioner, though originally before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was transferred to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, it is again transferred to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. It is submitted that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had called for a report by proceedings dated 01.07.2024 and the such report has also been prepared on 31.07.2024.

WP(C) NO. 23607 OF 2024 3

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax may be directed to take a decision in the matter, without further delay.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department and considering the limited nature of relief now sought for by the petitioner, the writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [before whom the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 is now pending] to take a decision in the matter, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 23607 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23607/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.32340/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED, 13-10-2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 24-10-2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED, 11-1-2024 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED, 15-1-2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THE DETAILS OF ANNEXURES PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →