MARUTHI BABU RAO JADAV vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/101/2019HC KeralaKLHC01000327201922 January 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment, dismissed the writ petition. The Court applied the ratio of its previous decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Wahab (1990 182 ITR 464 Ker) to the present case. While the specific issue decided in S.A. Wahab is not detailed in this excerpt, the Court's reliance on it indicates that the petitioner's arguments regarding the prospective application of Section 115BBE and the consequent tax levy were found to be without merit, consistent with the earlier precedent. Therefore, the assessment order levying tax at 60% plus 25% surcharge on the declared income was upheld, and the petitioner's prayer for relief was denied. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) and other related orders (Ext.P3, P4, and P5). The core of the challenge was the levy of tax at 60% plus 25% surcharge on declared income. The petitioner sought a declaration that the amended Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, introduced by the Taxation Second Amendment Act 2016, should be applied prospectively and not affect events prior to December 15, 2016. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Kozhikode. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether amended Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature, and if the Taxation Second Amendment Act 2016 has no bearing on events that occurred before December 15, 2016 (a question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that amended Section 115BBE should be prospective and not apply to events prior to December 15, 2016. They sought to set aside the assessment order levying tax at 60% plus 25% surcharge on declared income. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the assessment order itself, which is under challenge, implies the revenue's position that the amended Section 115BBE was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 101 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: MARUTHI BABU RAO JADAV AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.BABURAO SAMBAJI JADAV DHANALAKSMI NIVAS, NEAR ARADHANA QUARTERS, PRINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN (NORTH BLOCK), KOZHIKODE - 673 001. SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 101 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. Declare that amended section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act to be prospective in nature and the Taxation Second Amendment Act 2016 has no bearing on events that occurred before 15.12.2016, which is not connected with demonetization. ii. To call for the records leading to Ext.P3, P4 and P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ or direction setting aside Ext.P2 assessment order in so far as it levies tax of 60% +25% as Surcharge, on the declared income. iii. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P3, P4 and P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ or direction setting aside Ext.P3, P4 and P5. 2. In the light of the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Wahab1 on an identical issue, I apply its ratio to this case too. As a result, I dismiss this writ petition. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE 1 1990 182 ITR 464 Ker

WP(C).No. 101 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT ALONG WITH INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE EXHIBIT P3OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH 271B OF THE EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH 271 AAC OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. EXHIBIT P5OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. EXHIBIT P6OF THE TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT ACT 2016.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →