FINSREE SALES AND SERVICES LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19821/2020HC KeralaKLHC01049274202024 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications (Exts.P3 to P5) for condonation of delay in filing returns under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order is to be passed within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The consideration must include hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was also instructed to provide a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the delay condonation applications themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Finzere Sales and Services Limited, filed applications (Exts.P3 to P5) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking condonation of delay in filing their income tax returns. The petitioner was represented by its Managing Director. The 1st respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious consideration and disposal of these applications by the 2nd respondent after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing returns under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and pass orders on their delay condonation applications expeditiously after providing a hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the applications or the timeline for disposal. The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19821 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER/S: FINSERE SALES AND SERVICES LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, SAGARASREE COMPLEX OPP. ASOKA THEATRE, SOUTH NADA KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680 664 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. K.P BINU BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SREEJITH R NAIR TELMA RAJU SRI HARINI S.P RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) THRISSUR- 680 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RANGE-1 S.T NAGAR, THRISSUR- 680 001 OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19821 OF 2020(C) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 to P5 applications before the 2nd respondent under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act for condoning a delay in the filing of returns. The limited prayer at this stage is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P5 applications preferred by the petitioner within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.19821 OF 2020(C) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 1.02.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEPARATE APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF SEPARATE APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y2011-12 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 13.03.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 13.03.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF POSTING NOTICE DATED 15.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 119(2)

All 74 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →