Ernakulam District Government College Employees Cooperative Society Limited v. Income-tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(5), Kochi
[Citation -2020-LL-0803]

Citation 2020-LL-0803
Appellant Name Ernakulam District Government College Employees Cooperative Society Limited
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(5), Kochi
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 03/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application for rectification • rectification application • time limit
Bot Summary: No.13837 of 2020 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P12 communication that was issued to it stating that the application for rectification could not be considered since the issue involved did not come within the scope of a rectification application. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P12 order, inter alia, on the contention that the application under Section 154 was preferred seeking the correction of a mistake that was apparent from the record, in that the respondent assumed in the order impugned in the rectification application that the return had been filed belatedly when it was actually filed within time. The petitioner would clarify that the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act was disallowed by the assessing authority solely on the ground that the return was not filed in time whereas, it is her specific case that the return was actually filed in time and it was in order to correct this mistake that was apparent from the record that the rectification application was filed. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar,I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent failed to consider the actual issue that was raised in the rectification application, and proceeded on the assumption that what was agitated in the rectification application was the merits of the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The issue urged in the rectification application was the propriety of the observation in the assessment order that the return had been filed beyond time, whereas it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the return was filed within time. Under the said circumstances, I quash Ext.P12 communication of the respondent, and direct the respondent to consider the rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, afresh, after hearing the petitioner. No.13837 of 2020 4 petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the respondent for further action.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13837 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER: ERNAKULAM DISTRICT GOVERNMENT COLLEGE EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. E 844, MAHARAJAS COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 1(5), OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI -682018. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No.13837 of 2020 2 JUDGMENT petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P12 communication that was issued to it stating that application for rectification could not be considered since issue involved did not come within scope of rectification application. In Writ Petition, petitioner impugns Ext.P12 order, inter alia, on contention that application under Section 154 was preferred seeking correction of mistake that was apparent from record, in that respondent assumed in order impugned in rectification application that return had been filed belatedly when it was actually filed within time. petitioner would clarify that deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act was disallowed by assessing authority solely on ground that return was not filed in time whereas, it is her specific case that return was actually filed in time and it was in order to correct this mistake that was apparent from record that rectification application was filed. respondent authority, however, assumed that what was being urged in rectification application was permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act on merits, and not factual aspect as regarding whether or not return was filed within time. W.P(C).No.13837 of 2020 3 2. I have heard Smt.A.K.Preetha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing counsel for respondent. 3. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case and submissions made across Bar,I find force in submissions of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent failed to consider actual issue that was raised in rectification application, and proceeded on assumption that what was agitated in rectification application was merits of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act. issue urged in rectification application was propriety of observation in assessment order that return had been filed beyond time, whereas it is specific contention of petitioner that return was filed within time. 4. Under said circumstances, I quash Ext.P12 communication of respondent, and direct respondent to consider rectification application under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, afresh, after hearing petitioner. respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, after hearing petitioner, within outer time limit of three months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. W.P(C).No.13837 of 2020 4 petitioner shall produce copy of writ petition together with copy of judgment before respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/3.8.2020 W.P(C).No.13837 of 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RETURN FILED BY PETITIONER ON 28/11/2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 12/2/2019 ISSUED BY CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DATED 12/02/2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RESPONSE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ON 5/3/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER F.NO.225/15/2019/ITA.11, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (CBDT) DATED 27/2/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/05/2019 PASSED BY JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER (TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE) EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION REQUEST SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 10/06/2019 (TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE) EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 22/06/2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/06/2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF CORRECTION CARRIED OUT IN SCHEDULE VIA ALONG WITH REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 25/07/2019. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6/08/2019. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ITBA/ADM/S/26/2020- 21/1027321771(1) DATED 17/6/2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE Ernakulam District Government College Employees Cooperative Society Limited v. Income-tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(5), Kochi
Report Error