THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PONVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 985, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29351/2021HC KeralaKLHC01072993202121 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the observation of the Appellate Authority regarding the belated filing of the return was incorrect. The Court referred to Ext.P1, a CBDT order dated 30.11.2020, which extended the due date for filing returns for assessment year 2019-20 to 30.11.2020. Since the petitioner filed its return on 19.02.2020, it was within the extended due date. Consequently, the Appellate Authority failed to consider a valid return filed by the assessee. The Court found that the impugned order (Ext.P7) became a non-speaking order and was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 14.12.2021 was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, and within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Managing Committee of Ponvila Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 985, challenged an order (Ext.P7) passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the return of income filed was belated. The Appellate Authority noted that the due date for filing the return was 30.09.2019, extended to 31.10.2019, whereas the petitioner filed its return on 19.02.2020. The petitioner contended that this reasoning was incorrect. The assessment year in question is 2019-20.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the return of income filed by the petitioner for assessment year 2019-20 was belated, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and issuing a non-speaking order, contrary to the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority's finding regarding the belated filing of the return was incorrect. They relied on Ext.P1, an order issued by the CBDT on 30.11.2020, which extended the time for filing returns for assessment year 2019-2020 up to 30.11.2020. Therefore, the return filed on 19.02.2020 was within the extended due date. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 119

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29351 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PONVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 985, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AYIRA P.O., VIA PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI AMRUTHA SURESH RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE-560 500. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BAHVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), NORTH BLOCK, DELHI-110 001. 5 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (FORMER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK), REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29351 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J .............................................… W.P.(C) NO.29351 OF 2021 …........................................ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2021

JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Appellate Authority issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The contentions raised by the petitioner is that ground for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner is that the return filed by the petitioner was belated. This reasoning is evident from paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order. For the purpose of better comprehension paragraph 6.2 of Ext.P7 is extracted as below. “As per grounds 3,4 and 5 the appellant has objected to the disallowance of the claim u/s 80P (2) (a)(i) of the Act. The appellant has made submissions on the merits of its claim as an agricultural credit co-operative society. However, from the order of CPC it is seen that the appellant’s claim has been disallowed on the ground that the return has been filed late. The due date for filing the return was 30.09.2019, the extended due

WP(C) NO. 29351 OF 2021 3 date was 31.10.2019 while the appellant has filed its return on 19.02.202, which is much after the due date.”

3.

A perusal of the above extracted portion reveals that, the Appellate Authority proceeded on the assumption that the last date for filing the return for the assessment year 2019-20 was 30/9/2019, which was extended only upto 31/10/2019, while the appellant filed his return only on 19/2/2020. According to the Appellate Authority, the return filed was beyond the due date.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P1 order issued by the CBDT on 30/11/2020, extending the time for filing the returns for the assessment year 2019-2020 uptill 30/11/2020. 5. In view of the aforesaid order issued under Section 119 of the Act, it is explicit that the observation of the Appellate Authority extracted earlier is incorrect. Therefore, since the valid return filed by the appellant was not considered, the impugned order becomes a non- speaking order and is to regarded as issued in violation of WP(C) NO. 29351 OF 2021 4 the principles of natural justice. Accordingly Ext.P7 order issued by the CIT appeals dated 14/12/2021 shall stand set aside. Appellate Authority is directed to pass fresh orders after grating an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is allowed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 29351 OF 2021 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29351/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.225/150/2020/ITA 2 DATED 30.09.2020 OF THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILING DEAD LINE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-2019. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE YEAR 2019-2020 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SUBMITTED DATED 19.02.2020. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.05.2002 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.05.2020 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 17.11.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AS REPORTED IN 2021(1) KHC 303. Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2021 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →