M/S JOHN, JOSEPH & MATHEW V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/6376/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. John, Joseph & Mathew, a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants, who filed writ petitions against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-II, and the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-I. The petitions sought to set aside the orders rejecting the firm's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns and claiming refunds for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The delay was attributed to internal disputes among the partners of the firm. The court found that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to present their case before the respondent-authority, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and remanding the matter for reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735911 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Sections 264 and 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: NITYA P
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax Returns; Non-speaking order; Refund claims; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 264; 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH Writ Petition Nos.6376 & 12185 – 12186 / 2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/s.John, Joseph & Mathew, A Partnership firm comprising of Chartered Accountants, No.2/1, Shiva Krupa, 4th Cross, 3rd Main, Ganganagar Extension, PO Box No.3252, Bangalore. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Nitya Kalyani P., Advocate ) AND: 1. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-II, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore, Rep.by Commissioner-II. 2. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-I, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. .. Respondents ( By Sri K.V.Aravind, Advocate ) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order of R1 dated 10th May 2013 at Annexure-A. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following : 2 ORDER Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 10th May 2013 vide Annexure-A by issuing writ of certiorari; to set aside the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-J and to direct respondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing the returns for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and to grant refund claims put forth by the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, it is a firm of Chartered Accountants. It filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns and also claiming refund for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-II. According to the petitioner, the delay occurred because of some disruption in functioning of the firm as dispute arose between the partners in the firm. The 1st respondent rejected the application. Against this, a Revision Petition came to be filed before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The same came to be disposed of on the ground that no review of such order of 3 respondent No.1 was contemplated as per Sections 264 and 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act vide Annexure-J. Stating that the said order is a non-speaking order and without any reason, petitioner is before this Court. 3. According to the petitioner, they are entitled for refund of revenue in respect of the returns filed. The delay occurred is due to disruption in the functioning of the firm as some partners went out of partnership firm and the same has not been accepted by respondent No.1. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that delay is not satisfactorily explained and as such, by exercising discretion, the assessing authority has not assessed the returns filed belatedly and accordingly, submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the 1st respondent. 5. However, one more opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority. As such, petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the respondent-authority within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to submit its explanation in 4 detail and it is for the respondent-authority to consider the same in accordance with law and to assess the returns filed. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent is quashed, with liberty to the respondent-authority to assess the returns filed and also to consider the aspect of delay in accordance with law. In the event, the respondent-authority is not satisfied with regard to assessment made and come to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for refund, it is for the respondent-authority to raise demand, for which the petitioner should not raise any objection regarding limitation. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE *bk/- "