S.ABDUL HAMEED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the averments in the Writ Petition are refuted and the findings of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P9 order are sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein. It is, in particular, pointed out that inasmuch as the first return filed by the petitioner was itself belated, the petitioner could not have filed a belated return under S. 139 (5) and hence the Principal Commissioner could not have considered the request for a condonation of delay in filing the revised return.

Through a reply affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, my attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Limited v. Union of India and Others [2008 (1) KHC 637], wherein on the aspect of condonation of delay, it was held by this Court that the Board should condone the delay if failure to condone the delay causes genuine hardship to the assessee no matter whether the delay in filing the return is meticulously explained

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 find that Ext.P9 order of the 4th respondent cannot be legally sustained. At the outset, I find that as per the provisions of S.139 (4), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2017, any person who had not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (i), could furnish a return of any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The petitioner not having filed a return for the assessment year within the time allowed to him under sub- section (i) could, therefore, have filed a revised return on or before 31.03.2016, the date of expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year viz.2014-2015. In the instant case, as already noticed, the petitioner filed two returns, one on 06.11.2014 (Ext.P1), followed by another on 11.05.2015 (Ext.P2). Perhaps, the petitioner did not have to seek a condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 return since it was a return that could be traced to S. 139 (4), as it then stood, and in that event, one that was filed within the time allowed by the Section. In the instant case, however, I need not consider the said issue since it is the admitted case

It is not in dispute that the assessment of the petitioner for the said year (2014-2015) is yet to be completed. The delay that the petitioner sought to get condoned was only 42 days. Through Ext.P2 revised return, the petitioner had in fact brought to the notice of the Department, the details of tax that had been deducted at source from amounts received by the petitioner by way of compensation for land acquired from him during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. Even if the petitioner had not filed a revised return, I am of the view that the assessing authority cannot ignore the fact of deduction of tax at source, from payments made to the petitioner during the relevant previous year, while completing the assessment for the assessment year in question. This would be more so because, after deduction of tax at source, the person deducting tax at source would have issued the necessary intimation to the Income Tax Department while forwarding the deducted tax amounts to the Department on behalf of the petitioner assessee. I, therefore, find that there was no valid justification for the WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 6 4th respondent to have rejected the request of the petitioner under S. 119 (2) of the Act, more so when granting the relaxation as prayed for by the petitioner would not have prejudiced the interests of the department in any manner. The decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner also justifies the said finding. The reasons given in Ext.P9 order for rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner are neither convincing nor justified. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P9 order and direct the respondents to consider the details given in Ext.P2 revised return also while finalising the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-2015 with consequential benefits to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR