D.GOPALAKRISHNAN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/18745/2014

AI Insights

The case involves D. Gopalakrishnan, the petitioner, who challenged an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-2012. The return was filed 27 months late, and the delay was attributed to the petitioner's health issues, specifically back pain, which he claimed prevented him from filing on time. The Commissioner rejected the application citing insufficient reasons for the delay. The petitioner provided documents to show that tax was deducted from his compensation for land acquisition, which he received shortly before the delayed filing. The court found that the petitioner was not given a sufficient opportunity to present his case and thus decided to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699137 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R M MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T R RAVI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2011-2012; Condonation of delay; Delay in filing; Income Tax Return; Back pain
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18745 of 2014 (P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ D.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREEDHAR BHAVAN, TC 9/29, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O KALLAMPALLY, MAV ARTHALAKON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18745 of 2014 (P) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF FORM 16 A CERTIFICATE EXT.P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2013 EXT.P3 COPY OF IT RETURN FOR YEAR 2011-2012 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY EXT.P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.11.2013 EXT.P6 COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXT.P7 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13.5.2014 EXT.P8 COPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 27.5.2014 EXT.-P9 COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.6.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- nil. // True copy // PA to Judge das A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ========================= W.P.(C). No. 18745 of 2014 ================================= Dated this the 7th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P9, an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, in a petition to condone delay, an application filed under Sec.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner is the assessee and the assessment year related to 2011-2012. The return of income for assessment of the said assessment year was filed only on 09.10.2013, after a delay of 27 months. The petitioner sought for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the authority on the ground that sufficient reason has not been shown. It is not in dispute that the authority concerned can condone delay in filing the return on proper reasons to be stated. Though the petitioner had submitted that he was suffering from back pain, no materials were produced to substantiate the -2- W.P.(C). No.18745 of 2014 same. Petitioner relies upon Exts.P1 and P2, to indicate that the income tax deduction was made from the Land Acquisition Compensation and was received by the petitioner only on 01.02.2013 and thereafter since he was suffering from ailments, he could not file the return in time. 3. Statement is filed by the learned Standing Counsel inter-alia stating that Ext.P9 order has been passed after considering the facts and merits of the case and the authority had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner which was not availed of by the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, the petitioner ought to have produced sufficient materials before the Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of delay. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to substantiate his grievance, in the matter relating to condonation of delay. -3- W.P.(C). No.18745 of 2014 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as under: 6. Ext.P9 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application for condonation of delay afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Petitioner shall, in the meantime, produce sufficient material in the form of an affidavit and documents, if any, before the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed within another two months thereafter. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das "