MUPPATHADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW-DELHI

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/17942/2023HC KeralaKLHC01038999202302 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed the first respondent (CBDT) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application (Ext P2) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court noted that Ext P2 had been pending since January 5, 2019. Furthermore, until the CBDT takes a decision on Ext P2, all further proceedings pursuant to the intimation (Ext P4) disallowing deductions shall stand deferred. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on the procedural direction to consider the pending application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a co-operative society, filed an application (Ext P2) before the first respondent, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), seeking extension of time to file its income tax return for the assessment year 2018-2019, citing difficulties caused by the August 2018 floods. A Division Bench of the High Court had previously allowed individual assessees to make such applications. Despite this, the petitioner's return, claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, was processed, leading to disallowance of deductions (Ext P4). An appeal against this was dismissed (Ext P5), and a further appeal (Ext P6) was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority would not consider its return as filed within time without a decision on Ext P2. The writ petition sought a direction for the CBDT to consider and dispose of Ext P2 expeditiously.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should direct the first respondent (CBDT) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application (Ext P2) for extension of time to file its income tax return for assessment year 2018-2019, given that the application has been pending since January 5, 2019. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority would not treat its return as filed within the time limit without a decision on its pending application for extension of time. Therefore, a direction was sought for the CBDT to consider and dispose of Ext P2 expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents. The respondents are represented by counsel, but their contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 WP(C) No. 17942 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17942 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: MUPPATHADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.H. SABU, PIN - 683110 BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW-DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110003 2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, PIN - 682018 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101 4 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682037 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C) No. 17942 of 2023 C.S DIAS,J. --------------------------- WP(C) No. 17942 of 2023 ----------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2023

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent Board to consider and dispose of Ext P2 application submitted by the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that, it is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has filed Ext P2 application before the first respondent ventilating its difficulties on account of the floods that occurred in the State in August 2018 and for extension of time to file returns under Sec.139 (1) of the Income Tax Act ( in short, ‘Act’), for the assessment year 2018-2019. A Division Bench of this Court, by Ext P1 judgment, has permitted individual assessees to move the first respondent with individual applications. In the meantime, the return filed by the petitioner, claiming deduction under Sec.80P of the Act was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore and Ext P4 intimation was issued to the petitioner, disallowing the deductions. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Ext P5 order. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed Ext P6 appeal before the fourth respondent. Nevertheless, without considering Ext P2 application, the Appellate Authority will not treat the return filed by the petitioner as one filed within the time. Hence, there may be a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P2 application, expeditiously. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.S.Arun Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking into account that Ext P2 application is pending consideration before the first respondent from 5.1.2019, I am of the definite view that the first respondent is to be directed to consider and dispose of Ext P2 application before Ext P6 appeal is considered by the fourth respondent. Resultantly, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext P2 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Until such time the first respondent takes a decision on Ext P2 application, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P4 intimation shall stand deferred. sks/2.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17942/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-12- 2018 IN WP (C) NO. 35382 OF 2018 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5-1- 2019 UNDER SECTION 119(2) OF THE ACT SENT BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI ALONG WITH EMAIL COVERING LETTER AND THE SPEED POST RECEIPT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27- 2-2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 8-2- 2020 UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE FOR THE AY 2018-19 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-12-2022 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NFAC, DELHI FOR THE AY 2018-19 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10-01-2023 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH FOR THE AY 2018-19 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10- 01-2023 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2018-19

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →