PORKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3107/2024HC KeralaKLHC01076527202402 February 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was prima facie incorrect. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed written submissions on November 3, 2023, which were to be considered before deciding the application for condoning the 7-day delay in filing the return. The impugned order erroneously stated that neither the petitioner appeared nor filed written submissions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, for passing a fresh order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh written submissions within one week from the date of the order, and the petitioner was to be served notice of hearing. The fresh order was to be passed expeditiously after considering the petitioner's submissions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Porkulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20 on March 8, 2019, which was 7 days beyond the due date of February 28, 2019. The petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of this delay. A notice was issued for a hearing on November 7, 2023, before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner was permitted to file written submissions, which it did on November 3, 2023. However, the impugned order was passed without considering these submissions, stating that neither the petitioner appeared nor filed written submissions. This writ petition was filed challenging the said order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated by non-consideration of the written submissions filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that the impugned order is incorrect as it was passed without taking into account the written submissions filed by the petitioner on November 3, 2023, despite the order stating otherwise. The petitioner argues that this procedural lapse renders the order unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The respondent is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and the standing counsel appeared. However, their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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 DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO.3107 OF 2024 PETITI

ONER: PORKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIII/109, VIA PAZHANJI TALAPPILY, THRISSUR, KERALA, INDIA, PIN-680 542. BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU RESPONDENT: PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN-682 018. ADV.CYRIAC TOM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-2- W.P.(C) NO.3107 OF 2024 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 The petitioner claims to be a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner also claims that the petitioner is engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities only to its members. 2. The petitioner filed return on 08.03.2019 to the last date for filing the return was 28.02.2019. Thus, there was a delay of 7 days in filing the return. The petitioner moved an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for condoning the delay in filing the return. On the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2023 intimating the petitioner that the hearing on the application was fixed before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs./Tech), Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala on

-3- W.P.(C) NO.3107 OF 2024 07.11.2023 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioner was directed to appear either in person or through an authorised representative. The petitioner was given a liberty to file written submission which was to be taken into consideration before deciding upon the application for condoning the delay of 7 days in filing the return. The petitioner filed written submission on 03.11.2023. The impugned order has been passed without taking note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted written submission. The order shows that neither the petitioner appeared in person nor submitted the written submission. Prima facie, the said finding is incorrect on the basis of the report. 3. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala to pass a fresh order. The petitioner is given liberty to file fresh written submission before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala within one week from today. The petitioner may be served notice of hearing, and after

-4- W.P.(C) NO.3107 OF 2024 considering the submission of the petitioner, fresh order shall be passed expeditiously. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE bpr

-5- W.P.(C) NO.3107 OF 2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3107/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 3.12.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27.10.2023 ISSUED FROM RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.11.2023 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.13/2023 DATED 26.7.2023. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF HAVING DISPATCHED BY REGISTERED POST ALONG WITH THE TRACK RECORD. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2023 BY RESPONDENT.

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 →