M/S. FATHIMA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/31709/2016HC KeralaKLHC01079133201612 January 2017Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN4 pages
AI SummaryThe provided text does not contain the judgment's outcome. Therefore, the result cannot be determined.

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list and does not contain the operative part of the judgment or the High Court's decision. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, the ratio, and the operative directions are not available. The specific findings on any issues, the principle that could be cited, and any operative directions such as remand or deletion are not recorded. Similarly, no issue was expressly left undecided as the outcome of the writ petition is not presented.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Fathima Educational and Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner is challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The petition is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench), and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The procedural history indicates that the matter was heard by the High Court on January 12, 2017. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner likely sought to quash or set aside an adverse order passed by the income tax authorities. The specific grounds for challenging the order are not detailed in the provided text. The revenue authorities, represented by the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, would have defended their actions and the orders passed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is also a respondent, suggesting that a prior appeal to the Tribunal might have been decided against the petitioner, leading to this writ petition. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that form the basis of the dispute are not mentioned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 31709 of 2016
ITA NO.84/COCHIN/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/22ND POUSHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 31709 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S. FATHIMA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KUMPANVILA VEEDU, CHENKAL VILLAGE, ARAYOOR POST, AMARAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM-695122, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, SHRI J.VARGHESE. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, (BLOCK C-I & C-II), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP. CSEZ, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682037, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. BY ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. WP(C).No. 31709 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT, DATED 3-3-2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-10-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-11-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C.NO.301/50/2009-10 DATED 30-9-2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4-2-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25-7-2016 IN ITA NO.84/COCHIN/2016 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2ND RESPONDENT). RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.V. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 31709 of 2016 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2017

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order at Ext.P7 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin. The short facts to be noticed are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming registration as a charitable institution. The same was once dismissed by Ext.P1 dated 03.03.2009. A subsequent application was made which was also rejected as per Ext.P4 dated 30.09.2010. A 3rd application is also said to have been made, which is said to be pending.

2.

While so, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with a delay of 1964 days. The Tribunal by a detailed order refused to condone the delay. The only ground raised in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application was the WPC.No.31709/2016 : 2 : lack of understanding of the assessee with respect to the relevant procedure and the provisions of the Act. It is trite that ignorance of law is not an excuse and lack of understanding would also be akin to ignorance; which cannot validly be taken up. The delay is also huge coming to 1964 days. This Court does not find any reason for condoning the delay and is unable to persuade itself to interfere with the order of the Tribunal The writ petition would stand dismissed leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to agitate the third application filed before the appropriate authority, which shall be applicable only to the future years, if at all. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //// P.A to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →