S.Abdul Hameed v. The Income-tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram / The Special Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram / The CIT, Thiruvananthapuram / The Principal Commissioner of Income, Thiruvananthapuram
[Citation -2020-LL-0924-22]

Citation 2020-LL-0924-22
Appellant Name S.Abdul Hameed
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram / The Special Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram / The CIT, Thiruvananthapuram / The Principal Commissioner of Income, Thiruvananthapuram
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 24/09/2020
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deduction of tax at source • condonation of delay • genuine hardship • land acquisition • grant of refund • revised return • belated return • tds return
Bot Summary: No.13406 OF 2020(A) 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, had filed Ext.P1 return for the assessment year 2014-2015 returning an amount of Rs. 2,06,160/- and claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 670/-. On coming to know that the revised return filed by him would not be considered by the respondents, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return. The petitioner not having filed a return for the assessment year within the time allowed to him under sub- section could have filed a revised return on or before 31.03.2016, the date of expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year viz.2014-2015. Perhaps, the petitioner did not have to seek a condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 return since it was a return that could be traced to S. 139, as it then stood, and in that event, one that was filed within the time allowed by the Section. Through Ext.P2 revised return, the petitioner had in fact brought to the notice of the Department, the details of tax that had been deducted at source from amounts received by the petitioner by way of compensation for land acquired from him during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. Even if the petitioner had not filed a revised return, I am of the view that the assessing authority cannot ignore the fact of deduction of tax at source, from payments made to the petitioner during the relevant previous year, while completing the assessment for the assessment year in question. No.13406 OF 2020(A) 6 4th respondent to have rejected the request of the petitioner under S. 119 of the Act, more so when granting the relaxation as prayed for by the petitioner would not have prejudiced the interests of the department in any manner.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: S.ABDUL HAMEED HIJAS MANZIL, SASTHAVATTOM P.O. MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 305. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION AND SREEPANDARAVAKA LANDS NO. III, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 4 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. R1, R3-4 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 2 JUDGMENT petitioner, who is assessee under Income Tax Act, had filed Ext.P1 return for assessment year 2014-2015 returning amount of Rs. 2,06,160/- and claiming refund of amount of Rs. 670/-. On processing return submitted by him, respondents refunded said amount to him. It would appear that property owned by petitioner was acquired by 2nd respondent and amount of Rs.46,39,856/- was paid to petitioner, after deducting amount of Rs.9,28,642/- towards TDS. 2nd respondent had deducted tax at source while making payment towards compensation to petitioner in respect of land compulsorily acquired from him. petitioner, therefore, revised his return for assessment year 2014-2015 through Ext.P2 revised return filed on 11.05.2015. On coming to know that revised return filed by him would not be considered by respondents, petitioner preferred application under Section 119(2) of Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing revised return. said application came to be rejected by Ext.P9 order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.09.2019, inter alia, on finding that petitioner had failed to furnish any document to support his claim that Tahsildhar (LA) had filed TDS return belatedly. Principal Commissioner also found that petitioner had not established that he would face genuine financial hardship if refund WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 3 was not granted to him. It is apparent from Ext.P9 order that Principal Commissioner was guided by contents of Ext.P11 Circular that was issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing guidelines for exercise of discretion under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act. 2. statement has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein averments in Writ Petition are refuted and findings of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in Ext.P9 order are sought to be justified for reasons contained therein. It is, in particular, pointed out that inasmuch as first return filed by petitioner was itself belated, petitioner could not have filed belated return under S. 139 (5) and hence Principal Commissioner could not have considered request for condonation of delay in filing revised return. 3. Through reply affidavit filed by learned counsel for petitioner, my attention has been drawn to decision of this Court in Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Limited v. Union of India and Others [2008 (1) KHC 637], wherein on aspect of condonation of delay, it was held by this Court that Board should condone delay if failure to condone delay causes genuine hardship to assessee no matter whether delay in filing return is meticulously explained WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 4 or not. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondents. 5. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case and submissions made across Bar, I find that Ext.P9 order of 4th respondent cannot be legally sustained. At outset, I find that as per provisions of S.139 (4), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2017, any person who had not furnished return within time allowed to him under sub-section (i), could furnish return of any previous year at any time before expiry of one year from end of relevant assessment year or before completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. petitioner not having filed return for assessment year within time allowed to him under sub- section (i) could, therefore, have filed revised return on or before 31.03.2016, date of expiry of one year from end of relevant assessment year viz.2014-2015. In instant case, as already noticed, petitioner filed two returns, one on 06.11.2014 (Ext.P1), followed by another on 11.05.2015 (Ext.P2). Perhaps, petitioner did not have to seek condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 return since it was return that could be traced to S. 139 (4), as it then stood, and in that event, one that was filed within time allowed by Section. In instant case, however, I need not consider said issue since it is admitted case WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 5 that petitioner did file application under S.119 (2) of Act, for relaxation from rigours of S.139, and said application was considered by 4th respondent on merits and rejected by Ext.P9 order. What I am called upon to decide here is legality of Ext.P9 order and whether reasons stated therein would justify rejection of delay condonation application preferred by petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that assessment of petitioner for said year (2014-2015) is yet to be completed. delay that petitioner sought to get condoned was only 42 days. Through Ext.P2 revised return, petitioner had in fact brought to notice of Department, details of tax that had been deducted at source from amounts received by petitioner by way of compensation for land acquired from him during previous year relevant to assessment year. Even if petitioner had not filed revised return, I am of view that assessing authority cannot ignore fact of deduction of tax at source, from payments made to petitioner during relevant previous year, while completing assessment for assessment year in question. This would be more so because, after deduction of tax at source, person deducting tax at source would have issued necessary intimation to Income Tax Department while forwarding deducted tax amounts to Department on behalf of petitioner assessee. I, therefore, find that there was no valid justification for WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 6 4th respondent to have rejected request of petitioner under S. 119 (2) of Act, more so when granting relaxation as prayed for by petitioner would not have prejudiced interests of department in any manner. decision relied upon by counsel for petitioner also justifies said finding. reasons given in Ext.P9 order for rejecting application preferred by petitioner are neither convincing nor justified. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P9 order and direct respondents to consider details given in Ext.P2 revised return also while finalising assessment in relation to petitioner for assessment year 2014-2015 with consequential benefits to petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns WP(C).No.13406 OF 2020(A) 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF RETURN FILED BY PETITIONER FOR YEAR 2014-15 DATED 06.11.2014. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF REVISED RETURN FILED BY PETITIONER FOR YEAR 2014-15 DATED 11.05.2015. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY ND GRANT OF REFUND SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATE 11.06.2018. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND GRANT OF REFUND SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.08.2019. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.8.2019. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.2019. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2019. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 18876/2004 OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 17.10.2016. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 9/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD, OF DIRECTOR TAXES, NEW DELHI 09.06.2015. EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF FORM 26AS OF PETITIONER FOR YEAR 2014- 15. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE S.Abdul Hameed v. Income-tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram / Special Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram / CIT, Thiruvananthapuram / Principal Commissioner of Income, Thiruvananthapuram
Report Error