SEVEN STAR ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19702/2020HC KeralaKLHC01049282202023 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications (Exts.P3 and P4) filed under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court specified that this consideration and order should be completed within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner was also directed to produce a copy of the writ petition and the judgment before the 2nd respondent. The court did not delve into the merits of the delay condonation applications themselves, but rather directed the authority to process them. The principle established is that courts can direct statutory authorities to consider and decide applications pending before them within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring procedural fairness.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seven Star Enterprises, filed applications (Exts.P3 and P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These applications sought condonation of delay in filing their income tax returns. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur (1st respondent) is also a party. The petitioner's primary request in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on these delay condonation applications expeditiously, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was filed in 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and pass orders on applications filed under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condoning delay in filing returns. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) should be directed to consider and pass orders on their applications for condonation of delay in filing returns expeditiously, after hearing them. They rely on the general principle that authorities should consider applications filed before them in a timely manner. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the delay condonation applications. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

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.19702 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER/S: SEVEN STAR ENTERPRISES XXII/409, SAGARASREE, SOUTH NADA KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680 664 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.P BINU BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.TELMA RAJU SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5) THRISSUR- 680 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RANGE-1 S.T NAGAR, THRISSUR- 680 001 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.19702 OF 2020(K) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P4 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 at this stage is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader 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.P3 and P4 applications preferred by the petitioner within an outer limit of 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 SJ

WP(C).No.19702 OF 2020(K) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FILING RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 1.02.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SEPARATE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y2009-10 AND A.Y- 2010-11 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 7.12.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF POSTING NOTICE DATED 1.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 119(2)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →