Aivan Raj V. Union of India and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Department and The Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (CPC)

WP(C)/25761/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Aivan Raj against the Union of India and other respondents concerning the denial of carry forward loss in his income tax return for the assessment year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that his return was filed within the extended deadline due to technical issues with the online filing portal, which was acknowledged by a notification. However, the assessing officer rejected his explanation, leading to this writ petition. The court examined the procedural fairness and the technical limitations imposed by the online system, ultimately setting aside the rejection and remanding the matter for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802625 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State of Orissa vs. Binapani Dei and Ors., Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Asha Devi Gupta and Ors., State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: AIVANRAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2021-2022; Fundamental rights; Income Tax Return; Mechanical rejection; Rectification Application; Online Filing Portal
• Section: 143(1); 139(1); 139(5); 143(1)(a)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25761 OF 2022 PETITIONER: AIVAN RAJ AGED 29 YEARS POOTHAKUZHY HOUSE, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020 BY ADV AIVAN RAJ(Party-In-Person) RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001 3 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 4 THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU., PIN - 560500 BY ADVS. ASG OF INDIA JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.25761/2022 -2- J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment year 2021-2022 on 14-11-2021. The return filed by the petitioner was processed and certain carry forward loss claimed by him was denied to him on ground that he had not filed the return of income within the time specified under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner who appears party in person states that the due date for filing return of income for the assessment year 2021-2022 had been extended by notification and the last date of filing of return was on 15-03-2022. It is submitted that the due date for filing the return had been extended owing to glitches in the online filing portal and by Ext.P7 order the assessing officer had mechanically rejected the explanation given by the petitioner in respect of Ext.P3 intimation. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a response pointing out that the return was in fact was filed in time. The petitioner also points out that the 500 character limit imposed by the system for filing a response affects the fundamental rights of the petitioner and though the petitioner has filed an appeal against Ext.P7 that, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner is also seeking several directions to the respondents in the matter of maintenance of its online portal. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Department points out that the grievance projected by the petitioner could have been easily resolved if the petitioner had filed a rectification application. It is also pointed out that the 500 character limit imposed in the system is not at all bad in law and does not affect the fundamental rights of the petitioner as is now W.P (C) No.25761/2022 -3- projected. It is submitted that in respect of an intimation under Section 143 (1) the system provides sufficient space to upload a response. 3. The petitioner points out in reply that the petitioner was not even in a position to file any rectification application as the system did not enable the filing of any such rectification application except for correction of any arithmetical errors. It is submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner had actually filed his return of income within the time for the assessment year 2021-2022 is not an arithmetical error for which a rectification application could have been filed by the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that Ext.P7 does not take into account the fact that the last date for filing return of income for assessment year 2021-2022 had been extended upto 15- 03-2022, Ext.P7 will stand set aside. The Central Processing Centre, Bangalore will reconsider the matter taking into consideration of the observations contained above within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition will stand disposed of as above. All other issues raised in this petition are left open, as it is not necessary to adjudicate those issues in this writ petition. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG W.P (C) No.25761/2022 -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25761/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD IN THE E-FILING PORTAL OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1). Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD IN THE E-FILING PORTAL OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(5). Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.04.2022 . Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 01/2022 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 11.01.2022 . Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE INCOME TAX E-FILING PORTAL SHOWING THE CHARACTER COUNT AND DATA ENTRY PAGE. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE DATED 19.04.2022 AS RECORDED IN THE E-FILING WEBSITE. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITH DIN: CPC/2122/A3/229670423 DATED 28.04.2022. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED ON 07.05.2022. Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 35 APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN FORM 35 OF THE APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) . Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE-1 TO THE ONLINE APPEAL. Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAXPAYER'S COUNTERFOIL FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 250 (RUPEES TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY) AS FILING FEES. Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF ORISSA VS. BINAPANI DEI AND ORS., AIR 1967 SC 1269 W.P (C) No.25761/2022 -5- Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS., AIR 1978 SC 597 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THR. L.RS. AND ORS. VS. ASHA DEVI GUPTA AND ORS., (2003) 7 SCC 492 Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF KERALA VS. K.T. SHADULI YUSUFF AND ORS, AIR 1977 SC 1627 Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 'GUIDELINES OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS IN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEEDINGS' DATED 16.06.2021. Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNCITRAL TECHNICAL NOTES ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PUBLISHED ON APRIL, 2017. "