DR.DINESH KAMATH P.N. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II

WP(C)/5102/2012

AI Insights

Dr. Dinesh Kamath P.N. filed a writ petition challenging the orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which rejected his revisions for not claiming deductions for LIC premium and public provident fund investments in his electronic income tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The petitioner argued that the omissions were inadvertent. The respondents contended that the petitioner should have filed a rectification application under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as there was no substantive assessment order issued against him. The court agreed with the respondents, citing a precedent that no revision can be made against an intimation of assessment, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755402 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2008) 14 SCC 208
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; P K R MENON; S RUSSELL
• Assessee Lawyers: B ASHOK SHENOY
• Keywords: Electronic submission; Income Tax Return; LIC premium; Public Provident Fund; Rectification Application; Revision application
• Section: 143(1); 264; 164

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/12TH ASWINA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5102 of 2012 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- DR.DINESH KAMATH P.N., AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF P.NARAYANA KAMATH, “SWATHI', 44/232A, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR. COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) BY SRI.S.RUSSEL, C.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 5102 of 2012 (K) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------ EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OF ELECTRONIC INCOME TAX RETURN FILED, ONLINE, BY PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, DATED 14/3/2009 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR REVISION DATED 7/8/2009 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/3/2011 PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT UNDER FILE NO.CIT/CHN/RP.264/19/09-10. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10/5/2011 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 19/9/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/9/2011 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNDER FILE NO.CIT/CHN/RP-264/19/2009-10. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF TAX CHALLAN DATED 11/11/2011 FOR RS.43,755/- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE bp A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ................................................. W.P.(C) No.5102 of 2012 (K) ............................................... Dated this the 04th day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court by challenging Exts.P4 and P7 orders issued by the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner's case is that, as an income tax assessee he filed his income tax return in electronic form, for the assessment year 2007-2008. On introduction of electronic submission of assessment return first time in the year 2007, the petitioner inadvertently omitted to claim benefit of LIC premium and public provident fund investment in terms of Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs.1,03,996/-. On receipt of Ext.P2 intimation of the assessing officer, petitioner found out the error from his side in filing the return. By Exts.P3 & P5 representations, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking revision under the provisions of Section 264 of Income Tax Act 1961. Finding that the assessee did not claim any deduction in terms of Chapter VIA, the Commissioner rejected the revisions. Hence this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.5102 of 2012 (K) 2 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a revisional authority ought to have found that there is a mistake crept in the filing of return. 3.The learned standing counsel would submit that there was no order passed by the assessing authority therefore no revision would lie under the law. It is further pointed out that petitioner was entitled to file a rectification application. It is for the petitioner to file rectification application under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, to rectify the mistake within the time prescribed. 4.It is to be noted that there was no assessment order in the matter. The orders impugned in the revision was only an intimation. The Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited (2008) 14 SCC 208, it was held that no revision would lie as against the intimation of assessment. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that, even if petitioner is having a meritorious contention, W.P.(C) No.5102 of 2012 (K) 3 the petitioner's remedy was to file a rectification application. Having not availed such remedy, petitioner cannot claim any benefit of deduction. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE AMV/05/10/2017 "