THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT POSTS TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.E.85 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22697/2021HC KeralaKLHC01057579202111 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondents had no dispute regarding the apparent mistake in the computation statement (Ext.P6). The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the correction was being carried out and appropriate orders would be issued within a few weeks. The Court recorded this submission and found that nothing further survived in the writ petition. Consequently, Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 were quashed, and the corrected computation statement for assessment year 2018-19 was to be issued in terms of Ext.P5 assessment order. The ratio decidendi is that where a mistake in a computation statement is acknowledged by the revenue and steps for correction are underway, the High Court may quash the erroneous documents and direct issuance of corrected ones.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ernakulam District Posts Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd, is challenging the computation statement (Ext.P6) and demand notice (Ext.P7) for assessment year 2018-19, which were attached to the assessment order (Ext.P5). The petitioner's return was initially rejected as belated but later accepted as deemed filed within time. The assessment order (Ext.P5) indicated that the assessment was made without any modification to the returned income, which showed a claim for deduction under Section 80P. However, the computation statement (Ext.P6) showed deductions as '0'. The petitioner contended this was a mistake.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the computation statement (Ext.P6) and demand notice (Ext.P7) are erroneous in reflecting deductions as '0' when the assessment order (Ext.P5) stated no modification was made to the returned income, which included a claim for deduction under Section 80P, turning on the interpretation of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the deduction claimed under Section 80P was not mentioned as allowed in the computation statement, which was an apparent mistake. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the department had taken note of the mistake in the computation statement and demand notice and was taking steps to correct it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 PETITIONER : THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT POSTS TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.E.85, P & T CO-OPERATIVE BHAVAN, CHURCH LAND ROAD, COCHIN 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. MANOJ THOMAS. BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL ARAVIND SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , NEW DELHI – 110 003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.22697 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 computation statement attached along with Ext.P5 assessment order as well as Ext.P7 demand notice for the year 2018-19. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2018-2019, his return was initially rejected as belated. However, subsequently, the order of assessment was rectified and the return filed by the petitioner was accepted as deemed to have been filed within time. The claim of deduction under Section 80P was redone by the assessing authority and Ext.P5 assessment order was issued. Ext.P5 reveals that assessment was carried out without making any modification to the return submitted by the petitioner. The assessment was thus determined as per the return filed by the petitioner which showed no further liability on the petitioner. 3. However, while issuing the computation sheet along with the assessment order, the deduction claimed under Section 80P was not mentioned as allowed, which is apparently a mistake, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.

WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 3 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the instructions submitted that the department has taken note of the mistake committed in the computation statement as well as the notice of demand issued as Ext.P7 and that steps were being taken to the correct the same. 5. Today when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the correction as submitted earlier is being carried out and that appropriate orders will be issued within few weeks. Ext.P5 assessment order mentions that the “assessment is hereby made without making any modification to the returned income”. The return filed by the petitioner shows that the deductions under Chapter VIA was claimed while Ext.P6 computation statement shows deductions as '0'.

6.

Since the respondents have no dispute that there is an apparent mistake on Ext.P6 computation statement, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition except for recording the submission by the learned Standing Counsel that 'there is an apparent mistake in Ext.P6 which is being corrected and appropriate orders are being issued'. The said submission having been recorded, there is nothing further that survives in this writ petition and the same is disposed of by quashing Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. The corrected computation statement for the

WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 4 assessment year 2018-19 shall be issued in terms of Ext.P5 assessment order.

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22697/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.06.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.2.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2020 IN WPC NO. 12511 OF 2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 1.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET DTD. 4.3.21 NO. IIBA/AST/S/185/2020- 21/1031220917(1) Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 4.3.2021 NO. ITBA /AST/5/185/2020-21/1031220925(1).

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →