ANEESH KUMAR.C. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26129/2023HC KeralaKLHC01057319202313 September 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found substance in the rectification application. It directed the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) to decide the rectification application (Exhibit P-7) within a period of three months. The decision should consider that the compensation awarded was for land jointly owned by four persons, not solely by the petitioner. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not explicitly decide on the maintainability of the rectification application on merits but ordered its disposal, implying that the substantive issue of the petitioner's share in the compensation should be examined. The previous rejection of the revision petition on limitation grounds was noted but did not preclude the consideration of the rectification application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aneesh Kumar C., filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) to dispose of a rectification application filed on November 6, 2017. This application sought to rectify an assessment order dated February 19, 2014. The dispute arose from compensation received for land jointly owned by the petitioner and three other family members, acquired by the Government of Kerala. The initial compensation was Rs. 2,66,207, later enhanced to Rs. 42,03,842, inclusive of interest. The assessing authority treated the entire compensation of Rs. 44,70,049 as pertaining to the petitioner's land. A revision petition filed before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) was rejected on March 24, 2016, as being time-barred, as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to correct the assessment order dated February 19, 2014, is maintainable, considering it was filed after the statutory limitation period. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the rectification application (Exhibit P-7) was filed to correct a factual error where the entire compensation for jointly owned land was assessed in his name. The land was jointly held by four family members, and he had only received his 1/4th share of the compensation. The award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer supports this joint ownership. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, rejected the revision petition (Exhibit P-6) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 264(3) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessment order was dated February 19, 2014, and the revision was filed on March 24, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 264(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 26129 OF 2023
T.C.31/18

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 26129 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ANEESH KUMAR C., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRASENAN NAIR, T.C.31/1801, ATTUVARARAMBIL VEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA,VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695008. BY ADVS. SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT. MEERA V. MENON SRI. R. SREEJITH SMT. K. KRISHNA SMT. PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, RANGE-I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003. BY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM – SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP (C) NO. 26129 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- WP(C) No.26129 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023

JUDGMENT

1.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of Exhibit P-7 rectification application filed by the petitioner on 06.11.2017 seeking rectification of Exhibit P-2 assessment order dated 19.02.2014. 2. The Government of Kerala had acquired 1.35 Ares of land Survey No.203/15 in Pettah Village, Thiruvananthapuram district owned by the petitioner, his mother Anila Kumari, brother Krishna Kumar and sister Aswathy. Initially the compensation was Rs.2,66,207/- (Rupees Two lakh sixty six thousand two hundred and seven only) and it was enhanced to Rs.42,03,842/- (Rupees Forty two lakh three thousand eight hundred and forty two only). It was inclusive of interest.

3.

The award was in the name of the aforesaid four persons. It appears that the petitioner has received the entire compensation on behalf of all the family members. The initial compensation award

WP (C) NO. 26129 OF 2023 3 was Rs.2,66,207/- in respect of the said land vide Exhibit P-1 order dated 26.02.2007. 4. The assessing authority had treated the entire compensation as Rs.44,70,049/- in respect of the land of the petitioner and three other members and passed the assessment order Exhibit P-2. The Petitioner filed the rectification application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act against the said assessment order before the 2nd respondent Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the 2nd respondent vide Exhibit P-6 has rejected the said revision on the ground that the revision has been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 264 (3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order is dated 19.02.2014 and the revision was filed only on 24.03.2016, much beyond the period of one year of the limitation prescribed under Section 264 (3) of the Income Tax Act. After rejection of the revision petition vide Exhibit P-6, the petitioner had filed rectification application Exhibit P-7. However no decision has been taken till date. The only ground which has been urged in the rectification application is that the petitioner has received the compensation to the extent of 1/4 of the share inasmuch as the four family members have jointly held the land which was compulsorily acquired by the Government for the WP (C) NO. 26129 OF 2023 4 International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. This fact is also borne out from the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5.

In the above facts and circumstance of the case, I find that there is some substance in the rectification application. Therefore the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to decide the rectification application Exhibit P-7 keeping in mind the land for which the compensation was awarded was owned by the four persons jointly and not by petitioner alone. The 1st respondent should decide the rectification application within a period of three months in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP (C) NO. 26129 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26129/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF FORM NO.10 IN AWARD NO.03/07 ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 26-02-2007 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DTD. 19-02-2014 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 27-08-2014 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 36/2016 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DTD. 25-10-2016 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 1528/16 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 08-08-2016 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 27-03-2017 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 06-11-2017

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →