THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT POSTS TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.E.85 V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/22697/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Ernakulam District Posts Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd, represented by its secretary, Mr. Manoj Thomas, challenging the computation statement and demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. Initially, the petitioner's return was rejected as belated but was later accepted. The main contention was the omission of the deduction under Section 80P in the computation statement, despite the assessment order indicating no changes to the returned income. The respondent acknowledged the mistake and agreed to correct it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686713 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; TELMA RAJU; SANGEETH JACOB; CHRISTINA PAUL; ARAVIND SREEKUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment; Deduction; Demand notice; Income Tax; Computation Statement
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 PETITIONER : THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT POSTS TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.E.85, P & T CO-OPERATIVE BHAVAN, CHURCH LAND ROAD, COCHIN 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. MANOJ THOMAS. BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL ARAVIND SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , NEW DELHI – 110 003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.22697 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 computation statement attached along with Ext.P5 assessment order as well as Ext.P7 demand notice for the year 2018-19. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2018-2019, his return was initially rejected as belated. However, subsequently, the order of assessment was rectified and the return filed by the petitioner was accepted as deemed to have been filed within time. The claim of deduction under Section 80P was redone by the assessing authority and Ext.P5 assessment order was issued. Ext.P5 reveals that assessment was carried out without making any modification to the return submitted by the petitioner. The assessment was thus determined as per the return filed by the petitioner which showed no further liability on the petitioner. 3. However, while issuing the computation sheet along with the assessment order, the deduction claimed under Section 80P was not mentioned as allowed, which is apparently a mistake, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 3 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the instructions submitted that the department has taken note of the mistake committed in the computation statement as well as the notice of demand issued as Ext.P7 and that steps were being taken to the correct the same. 5. Today when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the correction as submitted earlier is being carried out and that appropriate orders will be issued within few weeks. Ext.P5 assessment order mentions that the “assessment is hereby made without making any modification to the returned income”. The return filed by the petitioner shows that the deductions under Chapter VIA was claimed while Ext.P6 computation statement shows deductions as '0'. 6. Since the respondents have no dispute that there is an apparent mistake on Ext.P6 computation statement, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition except for recording the submission by the learned Standing Counsel that 'there is an apparent mistake in Ext.P6 which is being corrected and appropriate orders are being issued'. The said submission having been recorded, there is nothing further that survives in this writ petition and the same is disposed of by quashing Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. The corrected computation statement for the WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 4 assessment year 2018-19 shall be issued in terms of Ext.P5 assessment order. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 22697 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22697/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29.06.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.2.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2020 IN WPC NO. 12511 OF 2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 1.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET DTD. 4.3.21 NO. IIBA/AST/S/185/2020- 21/1031220917(1) Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 4.3.2021 NO. ITBA /AST/5/185/2020-21/1031220925(1). "