CARMELITE MEDICAL CENTRE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the audit report (Ext.P4) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This consideration must be after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that any demand raised pursuant to the intimation under Section 143(1) (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P4. The principle established is that coercive recovery of tax demand should be stayed pending the decision on a crucial procedural application that could impact the assessee's eligibility for exemption.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Carmel Medical Centre, a Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an Income Tax demand raised through an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The denial of exemption for the assessment year in question was attributed to a delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B. The petitioner had filed an application for condonation of this delay before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), the 3rd respondent, which was pending. The petitioner contended that enforcing the demand pending the decision on the condonation application would cause prejudice. The respondent department stated that the 3rd respondent would consider and pass orders on the condonation application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should intervene in a matter where an application for condonation of delay in filing an audit report is pending before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)? (Question of law and fact, relating to the procedural fairness and the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that enforcing the demand raised under Section 143(1) while the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B is pending before the 3rd respondent would cause serious prejudice, injury, and hardship. They relied on the pendency of Ext.P4 application. Revenue's Contention: The respondent department stated that the 3rd respondent would consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court, being aggrieved by the fact that a demand for payment of Income Tax has been raised on the petitioner through Ext.P3 intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Charitable Trust, entitled to exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that the reason for denial of exemption, for the year in question, is on account of the fact that there was a delay in filing audit report in Form 10B of the Income Tax Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B of the Rules, before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that if the demands in Ext.P3 are sought to be enforced, pending consideration of the matter by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner will be put to serious prejudice, injury and hardship.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department submits that the 3rd respondent will consider and WP(C) NO. 34306 OF 2022 3 pass orders on Ext.P4, 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.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P4, any demand pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK
WP(C) NO. 34306 OF 2022 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
