TONY FRANCIS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5830/2022HC KeralaKLHC01012653202223 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This consideration is to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court specified that the order should be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court did not decide on the merits of the tax exemption or the refund claim itself, but rather directed the statutory authority to adjudicate the matter. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court deferred the decision to the Principal Commissioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tony Francis, approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a refund of tax paid on compensation received under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner claimed that they were unaware of the exemption from capital gains tax on such compensation amounts when the tax was remitted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Income Tax Officer and the Special Tahsildar (LA) No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project, were the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of tax paid on compensation received under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, considering the claimed exemption. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the exemption from capital gains tax on compensation received under the specified Act and had mistakenly remitted the tax. They have approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking appropriate relief, including condonation of delay. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

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 GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5830 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: TONY FRANCIS AGED 42 YEARS PATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAMMINI ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682017. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), RANGE-1, NON-CORPORATE, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1 KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 5830 OF 2022 2

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking refund of tax paid on compensation received under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, without being aware of the fact that the petitioner is exempted from paying tax on capital gains in respect of amounts received as compensation under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, petitioner had remitted tax with the Department. It is submitted that the petitioner has now approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by filing an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act along with an application for condonation of delay.

3.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act , after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a WP(C) NO. 5830 OF 2022 3 period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 5830 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5830/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH FORM 26AS. Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.36/16 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI. Exhibit P7 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1528/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →