L. SELVAN V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/39523/2017

AI Insights

The case involves L. Selvan, a civil contractor, who is an assessee to income tax. The Income Tax Officer assessed Selvan for the year 2013-14, imposing a liability of Rs.50,39,150. Selvan appealed this assessment, which was partially stayed by the appellate authority, directing him to pay a portion of the demand. The main contention in the appeal was the incorrect clubbing of receipts under two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) without allowing for expenditures related to one of the PANs. The High Court's judgment modified the appellate authority's order, reducing the immediate financial burden on Selvan while allowing for further examination of the issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764754 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P(C) 10455/2017, W.P(C) 27440/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; MAHESH MENON; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; Contract Receipts; Income tax assessment; Permanent Account Number; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WP(C).No. 39523 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ L. SELVAN, KOCHU MAVELI VEEDU, T.C 48/937, KATTAMALA, THAMALAM, POOJAPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 (3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sdr/- WP(C).No. 39523 of 2017 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX -------------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 29/12/2016 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/01/2017 EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2017 EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OFT HE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 10455/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 27/03/2017 EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 31/07/2017 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 27440/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21/08/2017 EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/2017 EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 29/02/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sdr/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.39523 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2017. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee to income tax on the rolls of the first respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 2013-14 has been completed by the first respondent in terms of Ext.P1 order, imposing the petitioner a liability of Rs.50,39,150/-. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order in appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P2 is the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the petitioner for stay in Ext.P2 appeal. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the appellate authority in Ext.P3 stay petition. Ext.P7 is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is a civil contractor. He had taken two Permanent Account Numbers viz, ACWPN9093L and WPC No.39523 of 2017 2 ACSPN0080F. The return was filed by the petitioner using the PAN ACSPN0080F disclosing contract receipts to the tune of Rs.4,09,22,500/-. The Form 26AS in respect of the PAN ACSPN0080F, however, disclosed contract receipts to the tune of Rs.4,27,05,785/-, leading a difference of Rs.17,83,285/-. Likewise, Form 26AS in respect of the PAN ACWPN9093L disclosed contract receipts to the tune of Rs.54,80,117/-. The assessing authority completed the assessment clubbing the total receipts under both the Permanent Account Numbers, without giving any allowance to the petitioner for the expenditure incurred by him in relation to the receipts reflected as against PAN ACWPN9093L. The main contention of the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal, in the circumstances, is that in so far as it is admitted that the amount of Rs.54,80,117/- reflected as against PAN ACWPN9093L is also contract receipts, the assessing authority should not have taken the entire amount as income. Though the appellate authority has justified the conduct of the assessing authority in treating the entire amount of Rs.54,80,117/- as the income by giving reasons in the WPC No.39523 of 2017 3 impugned order, I am of the view that this is a matter to be examined, especially since TDS has been deducted in respect of the said contract receipts. In the said view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to modify Ext.P7 order, staying 70% of the demand outstanding and thereby directing the petitioner to pay 30% within one month. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs "