M.K.KAMALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/15941/2008HC KeralaKLHC01058153200812 October 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text does not contain the Tribunal's decision on any issues, the reasoning behind it, or the ratio decidendi. Consequently, there are no operative directions such as remand or deletion, nor is there any mention of issues left undecided. The judgment does not record any findings or conclusions reached by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M. Kamala, an individual aged 80, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an action taken by the Income Tax Department. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tax Recovery Officer, and the Income Tax Officer. The specific order or action under challenge, the assessment year(s) involved, and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The provided text does not contain the specific questions the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it detail the arguments presented by the petitioner or the revenue. Therefore, it is not possible to identify the issues, frame them as questions of law or mixed law and fact, name the relevant provisions, or list the authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by each side. The judgment is silent on the contentions of both parties.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 15941 of 2008 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M.KAMALA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.M.BANTAPPA CHANILO, "SHREE SADASIVA KRIPA", AMBARU, MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAHANA BUILDING, MELE CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 2. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX, KANNOCHUMACHAL, RANGE-1, KANNUR 670 006. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE MOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAXES SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 15941 of 2008 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15941 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2012

JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It appears that for the assessment year 1984-1985, the petitioner did not file return even in spite of a notice issued to her under Section 148. In such circumstances, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. She sought complete waiver of the interest demanded by an application under Section 220 (2A) of the Act. A copy of this application is Ext.P1. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent, the relevant portion of which, reads thus: “I have considered the argument of the learned Advocate. Section 220(2A) prescribed three conditions to be satisfied. All the conditions taken together should be satisfied and assessee must co-operate not only in assessment but also in recovery. In this case, obviously, the assessee has not co-operated in assessment because return was not filed despite issue of notice under Section 148. Therefore, assessee is not eligible for waiver of interest. The application is rejected. “ : 2 : It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition is filed.

2.

By order dated 29.05.2008, this Court granted stay of Ext.P2 order on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.60,000/-. According to the petitioner, this condition has been complied with.

3.

Reading of Ext.P2 shows that the ground on which the application was rejected is that the petitioner did not co- operate in the assessment proceedings by filing a return even in spite of a notice under Section 148 issued to her. Having regard to the factual position that the petitioner did not file a return, this finding in Ext.P2 order is unassailable.

4.

However, fact remains that the petitioner is an 85 year old lady and is an illiterate. In such circumstances, the first respondent could have considered her request atleast for reduction of the interest liability and in my view, facts of this case justify an order reducing the interest liability. Therefore, I direct that Ext.P2 will stand modified and the interest levied shall stand reduced to Rs.60,000/-. It is directed that accepting Rs.60,000/-, which the petitioner has already paid : 3 : in pursuance to the interim order dated 29.05.2008 towards the interest liability, the demand will be treated as satisfied. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →