SUN FLOWER ASSOCIATES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19557/2020HC KeralaKLHC01049279202023 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner is directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications (Exts. P3 and P4) 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. Crucially, the Commissioner is also directed to hear the petitioner before passing the order. The petitioner is required to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance. The court did not decide 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, Sun Flower Associates, represented by its Managing Partner, filed applications (Exts. P3 and P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These applications sought condonation of delay in filing their income tax returns. The petitioner's primary request in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on these delay condonation applications expeditiously, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur, is the 1st respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax 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 and after hearing the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The assessee (petitioner) contends that they have filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing their returns and seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of these applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax after affording them a hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19557 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: SUN FLOWER ASSOCIATES XXII/409, SAGARASREE COMPLEX, OPP. ESSAN THEATRE, SOUTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680664, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.K.P.BINU. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.TELMA RAJU SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(5), THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RANGE-1, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19557 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P4 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 and P4 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 WP(C).No.19557 OF 2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXT.P2 COY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 EXT.P3 COY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.02.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4 COPY OF SEPARATE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2010- 11 & 2013-14 EXT.P5 COPY OF REMINDER DATED 07.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6 COPY OF REMINDER DATED 11.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8 COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 01.07.2019 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 →