SAPTHA MARKETING ASSOCIATES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19676/2020HC KeralaKLHC01049262202023 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax. The direction was to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications (Exts. P2 and P3) for condonation of delay in filing returns under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act. This order was to be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner should produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. The Court did not delve into the merits of the delay condonation applications themselves, but rather focused on ensuring their timely consideration. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Saptha Marketing Associates, represented by its Managing Partner, Sri. K.P. Binu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged the inaction of the respondents, the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner had submitted applications (Exts. P2 and P3) to the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing their income tax returns. The primary prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the 2nd respondent to expeditiously consider and pass orders on these applications after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted and heard on 23.09.2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the 2nd respondent 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 expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that they had filed applications under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing returns and sought a direction for expeditious disposal of these applications by the 2nd respondent after providing a hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing counsel for the respondents was heard. However, 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.19676 OF 2020 PETITIONER: M/S.SAPTHA MARKETING ASSOCIATES XXII/408,SAGARASREE COMPLEX,OPP.ESSEN THEATRE,SOUTH NADA,KODUNGALLUR, 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. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(5),THISSUR-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AAYAKAR BHAVAN,RANGE-1,S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. BY ADV.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.19676 of 2020 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P3 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 is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel 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.P2 and P3 applications within 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 mns/23.9.2020

WP(C).No.19676 of 2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 01.02.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF SEPARATE APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 7.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 11.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 119(2)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →