PUNNORATH MEETHAL SANKARAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/39796/2023HC KeralaKLHC01089451202318 December 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (2nd respondent) was without jurisdiction. According to Circular No. 9/2015, applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act where the claim for refund is not more than Ten Lakhs for any assessment year are to be considered by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In this case, the petitioner's claim for refund exceeded Ten Lakhs, meaning the jurisdiction to consider the application was not vested with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1. Consequently, the impugned order (Ext.P10) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner (4th respondent) for consideration and decision on the petitioner's application (Ext.P8) expeditiously within two months.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Punnorath Meethal Sankaran, proprietor of Fresh Products, filed a writ petition challenging an order (Ext.P10) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (2nd respondent). This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for condoning the delay in filing the income return for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner sought to file the return belatedly to claim a refund. The respondents include various Income Tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, is without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the order is flawed, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The core of the issue revolves around the proper authority to decide the application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position is reflected in the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, which rejected the application. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond this action.

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 MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39796 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: PUNNORATH MEETHAL SANKARAN AGED 71 YEARS PROPRIETOR FRESH PRODUCTS, V/39 AMBALAKADAVU, CHERANELLOOR ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034 BY ADVS. R.JAIKRISHNA NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN C.S.ARUN SHANKAR ANISH P. GANESAN M. VIVEK BHAT D. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 1(1) OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CR BUILDING. IS PRESS ROAD KOCHI, PIN - 682018 2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 CR BUILDING. IS PRESS ROAD KOCHI, PIN - 682018 3 CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER REPRESENTED BY - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, POST BAG NO.2, ELECTRONIC CITY P.O BANGALORE, PIN - 560500 4 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CR BUILDING. 2ND FLOOR, IS PRESS ROAD KOCHI, PIN - 682018 5 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 1(4) OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CR BUILDING. IS PRESS ROAD KOCHI, PIN - 682018 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 39796 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 18th day of December, 2023 The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P10 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petition under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) for condoning the delay in filing the return of the petitioner’s income for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2.Under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act r/w circular No.9/2015 dated 9.06.2015, the juri iction to consider the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in which the claim is not more than Ten Lakhs for any one assessment year, the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income tax shall be vested with the powers of acceptance / rejection of such applications / claims. 3.In the present case, the claim of refund is more than Ten Lakhs, and therefore, the juri iction to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, is not vested with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi has WP(C) NO. 39796 OF 2023 3 passed the order in Ext.P10, and thus, the order passed is without juri iction. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order in Ext.P10 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner, the 4th respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P8 application of the petitioner, expeditiously, within a period of two months. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SJ

WP(C) NO. 39796 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39796/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.2.2018 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.5.2019 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2019 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.6.2019 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.6.2019 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.6.2019 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ONLINE PORTAL DATED 13.10.2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2022 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 9/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 9.6.2015 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.9.2023

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 →