MARY RAJANSHEEN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/31961/2022HC KeralaKLHC01067849202211 October 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was for the petitioner to approach the respondent-Assessing Officer with an application, pointing out that the self-assessment tax paid had not been credited in the final assessment order (Ext.P3). If the petitioner could demonstrate the payment and non-credit of the self-assessment tax, the respondent was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders, giving credit for the amounts paid. The Court further directed that any demand arising from Ext.P3 be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the petitioner's application, provided the application is filed within ten days. The respondent was also directed to endeavor to decide the application within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court directed a procedural remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mary Rajansheen, a 72-year-old individual, approached the High Court of Kerala being aggrieved by the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner had paid Rs. 9,28,280/- as self-assessment tax, but the final assessment order, Ext.P3, reflected the self-assessment tax as 'zero'. The petitioner contended this was a mistake. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(5). The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition seeking rectification of this discrepancy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the self-assessment tax paid by the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18, amounting to Rs. 9,28,280/-, was erroneously not reflected as zero in the final assessment order (Ext.P3)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the accuracy of the assessment order and the credit of tax paid). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a substantial amount of self-assessment tax paid was mistakenly shown as zero in the assessment order, and this error needs correction. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Department submitted that if self-assessment tax was paid and not reflected, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to bring this to the attention of the Assessing Officer for necessary rectification, provided the petitioner can demonstrate the payment and non-reflection.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 31961 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: MARY RAJANSHEEN AGED 72 YEARS BLOCK NO.17B3 STAR HOMES APARTMENTS,OPP.CHOICE SCHOOL,TRIPUNITHURACOCHIN, PIN - 682301 BY ADVS. MARTHANDA VARMA PANDALAI.K S.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD2(5),INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CR BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD,KOCHI, PIN - 682018 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 31961 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that self assessment tax paid by the petitioner for the year 2017-18, as is evident from Ext.P2, has not been given credit to while finalizing the assessment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that though the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.9,28,280/- (Rupees Nine lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred and eighty only) as self assessment tax, Ext.P3 shows the self assessment tax to be ‘zero’. It is submitted that this is obviously a mistake and the same ought to be corrected.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Department submits that if the petitioner has paid self assessment tax, it is for the petitioner to point out the same before the Assessing Officer, who can make necessary rectification, if the petitioner is able to show that despite payment of self assessment tax, the same is not reflected in the assessment order.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

WP(C) NO. 31961 OF 2022 3 the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Department, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach the respondent, with an application, pointing out that self assessment tax paid by the petitioner has not been given credit to while finalizing Ext.P3 assessment. If the petitioner is able to demonstrate that self assessment tax has been paid by the petitioner and the same has not been given credit to, the respondent shall take into consideration the same and pass appropriate orders, giving credit to amounts paid by the petitioner.

If the petitioner approaches the respondent with appropriate application within a period of ten days from today, any demand pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the respondent on the application to be filed by the petitioner. The respondent will endevour to take a decision on the application to be filed by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above SD/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 31961 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31961/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 IT RETURN DATED 08-03-2022 FOR THE A.Y.2017- 18 Exhibit P2 CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 08-03-2022 FOR PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID FOR 2017-18 Exhibit P3 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 30-03-2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 Exhibit P4 DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30-03-2022 U/S 156 FOR THE A.Y.2017-18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →