KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT & WELFARE SOCIETY V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/139/2008

AI Insights

The case involves the Kerala Rural Employment & Welfare Society, a government undertaking, which sought to challenge the rejection of its application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 for the assessment year 2000-2001. The society, registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, faced a delay in filing due to its Chartered Accountant's oversight. The Income Tax Department denied the benefit of income accumulation, leading to tax liability. The society argued that the delay should be excused and that it met the conditions of the CBDT Circular No.273. The court examined the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules, particularly focusing on the interpretation of 'oversight' and the timelines for filing returns and notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793802 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Travancore- Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSEPH KODIANTHEARA; TERRY JAMES; JOSEPH MARKOSE
• Keywords: Accumulation of income; Charitable Trust; Condonation of delay; Form 10; Income tax exemption
• Section: 11; 139(1); 12A; 13; 139(4)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 139 of 2008(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT & WELFARE SOCIETY, REG.NO. 631/86, CORPORATION JUBILEE BUILDING, NEAR OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.V.M.GOPALA MENON. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI. JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 139/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FOR 2000- 2001 AND COMPUTATION. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.3.2006 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.273 DATED 3.6.1980. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.9.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 7.7.2008 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 222/223 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.139 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a welfare society registered under the Travancore- Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The membership of the Society consists of Panchayats in the State of Kerala and the Society itself is a Government of India undertaking. It is registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. It is entitled to exemption from income tax under Sections 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act. The last date for filing the return for the assessment year 2000-2001 was 31.10.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the delay on the part of the Chartered Accountant to finalize the accounts and file the return, the return was filed only on 22.1.2001. The petitioner also submitted Form 10 for accumulation along with the return. Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 reads as follows: “17. Notice for accumulation of income by charitable or religious trust or institution or association referred to in clauses (21) and (23) of Section 10 The notice to be given to the Assessing Officer or the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of Section 11 or under the said provision as applicable under clause (21) or WPC.139/2008. 2 clause (23) of section 10shall be in Form No.10 and shall be delivered before the expiry of the time allowed under sub- section (1) of Section 139, for furnishing the return of income.” The assessment for the year was completed. However, petitioner was not given the benefit of accumulation of income and it has been reckoned as the income of the year and the petitioner was called upon to pay tax on the said basis. Petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax invoking the benefit of Ext.P4 Circular and Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application for condonation of delay in giving Form 10 under Rule 17. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 and seeks a direction to the second respondent to condone the delay in filing Form 10. A declaration is sought that conditions in Ext.P4 Circular are complied with and a direction to sought to grant exemption under Section 11 with respect to the income accumulated for the year 2000-2001 in accordance with Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 2. I heard Sri. Joseph Markose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Jose Joseph appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department. 3. Two contentions are urged before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly he contends that under Rule 17 WPC.139/2008. 3 of the Income Tax Rules the petitioner must be treated as having filed Form 10 within the time. In this context he drew support of sub section (4) of Section 139. He would contend that the petitioner has filed the return on 22.1.2001, which is well within the period stipulated under sub section (4) of Section 139. Further contention raised by the petitioner is that at any rate the petitioner must be treated as having fulfilled all the conditions in Ext.P4 Circular and being a Government organisation the view taken in Ext.P5 for rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel would point out that Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules specifically mandates that notice must be given within the time fixed for filing the return in sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and there is no scope elongating the period with the support of Section 139(4). He also supported the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to refer to Section 139(1) as also Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act. Section 139 (1) and (4) reads as follows: “139. Return of income (1) Every person, - WPC.139/2008. 4 (a) being a company or a firm; or (b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed:” xxxxxx xxxxxx (4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. I have already referred to Rule 17. Rule 17 is unambiguously specific in so far as it mandates that the notice shall be delivered before the expiry of the time allowed under Section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income. In the first place, in my view, the words used are clear and leave no room for any ambiguity that the notice must be given within the time provided in Section 139(1). The rule making authority was aware of the provisions WPC.139/2008. 5 contained in Section 139(4). The opening words of Section 139(4) itself are 'Any person who has not furnished return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1)'. If it were the intention of the rule making authority that time for giving notice can be extended till the date of passing the order of assessment or the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, whichever is earlier, nothing prevented the rule making authority from employing the words to indicate such an intention. By no stretch of imagination can the extended period which is given under Section 139(4) be made available for giving the notice for accumulation of income by charitable trust or institution beyond the period mentioned in Section 139(1). There can be no doubt that on the one hand the period under Section 139(1) is specified in the Act for various categories of assessees. In fact Section 139(4) extends the period of time for filing the return in a case where the assessment is not completed or the period of one year has not run out from the date of expiry of the assessment year for a person inter alia who has not filed return within the time allowed under sub section (1). I therefore reject the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. WPC.139/2008. 6 6. As far as the second point is concerned, learned Senior Counsel would point out that the only reason forthcoming in Ext.P5 is that the explanation offered is not acceptable and being a Government organization it has the responsibility to comply with the provisions of the Act and make suitable arrangements. It is stated that records clearly show that the Society has not taken any steps to file the return along with From 10 within the extended time allowed. 7. The period fixed for filing the return for the year in question ended on 31.10.2000. The time was extended generally for all the assessees till 30.11.2000. No doubt petitioner did not file either the return or the notice in Form 10 before the said date. But the petitioner did have an explanation. I cannot also overlook the fact that petitioner is essentially a Government of Kerala undertaking. Further, it is also pointed out that petitioner has been registered since for quite sometime. The bone of contention apparently centered around a proper interpretation to be given to the word 'oversight'. The Circular reads as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorises the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications under Section 11(2) read with WPC.139/2008. 7 rule 17 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, from persons deriving income from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes for accumulation of such income to be applied for such purposes stipulated. Commissioners of Income-tax will, while entertaining such applications, satisfy themselves that the following conditions are fulfilled:- a. that the genuineness of the trust is not in doubt; b. that the failure to give notice to the Income-tax Officer under Section 11(2) of the Act and investment of the money in the prescribed securities was due only to oversight; c. that the trustees or the settlor have not been benefited by such failure directly or indirectly; d. that the trust agrees to deposit its funds int he prescribed securities prior to the issue of the Government sanction extending the time under section 11(2); e. that the accumulation or setting apart of income was necessary for carrying out the objects of the trust.” It is clause (b) which is sought to be invoked against the petitioner. 'Oversight' means, according to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the fact of making a mistake because you forget to do or you do not notice. It cannot be said that there is no explanation at all forthcoming from the petitioner. Apparently according to the petitioner there was delay of Chartered Accountant to finalize the accounts and it was accordingly that WPC.139/2008. 8 the Notice in Form 10 for accumulation was not filed within the time indicated in Rule 17. I would think that having regard to the totality of facts, Ext.P5 ought to be interfered with and I quash Ext.P5 and the second respondent will pass appropriate orders in the light of this judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb "