INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/24517/2021HC KeralaKLHC01062117202109 November 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the delay petitions filed by the petitioner along with their appeals against the penalty orders. If the third respondent deems it fit to condone the delay, then the stay petitions filed by the petitioner shall also be considered and disposed of. The Court mandated that this entire process be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed, all coercive proceedings pursuant to the penalty orders (Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a)) are to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty orders or the appeals themselves, but rather directed the procedural steps to be taken by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, is challenging penalty orders issued under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Trust had filed appeals before the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, along with delay petitions. The matter came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in a writ petition. The petitioner sought directions for the appellate authority to consider their delay and stay petitions. The respondents are represented by their Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the delay petitions filed by the petitioner along with their appeals against penalty orders under Section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on their delay petitions (Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a)) filed along with their appeals (Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a)). They also seek consideration of their stay petitions (Ext.P4 and Ext.P4(a)) if the delay is condoned. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that arguments were heard from the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 271E

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 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24517 OF 2021 PETITIONER: INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST NELLIKKUZHY P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 691 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI K M PAREETH BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI PIN 682 018 2 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), G-51, PARAPPILLY LANE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, GIRI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN-682 036 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.24517 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 24517 of 2021 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges orders of penalty issued under Section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appeals have been preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent along with delay petitions.

2.

I have heard the arguments of Adv.K.S.Hariharan Nair, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) delay petitions filed along with Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) appeals. If the third respondent deems it fit to condone delay, then the stay petitions filed as Ext.P4 and Ext.P4(a) shall also be considered and disposed of. The entire process as directed above, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a) shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/09.11.2021

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24517/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 10-09-2015 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 27ID OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 Exhibit P1A COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 10-09-2015 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10-11-2015 AGAINST EXT P1 Exhibit P2A COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10-11-2015 AGAINST EXT P1(A) Exhibit P3 COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 11-11-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT P2 APPEAL. Exhibit P3A COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 11-11-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT P2(A0 APPEAL Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-11-2021 IN EXT P2 APPEAL. Exhibit P4A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND DATED 03-11-2021 IN EXT P2(A0 APPEAL.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →