MARY KURUVILA V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II

WP(C)/1636/2017

AI Insights

Mary Kuruvila, the petitioner, sought to condone the delay in filing a revised income tax return for the assessment year 2007-08, which included compensation received for acquired agricultural land. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected her request, citing the statutory limitation period. The Income Tax Ombudsman upheld this decision. The petitioner challenged these decisions in the High Court of Kerala, which also dismissed her petition, reinforcing the principle that statutory limitations are binding and cannot be disregarded by the court or the tax authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699701 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK P J; JISEMOL THOMAS
• Keywords: Delay condonation; Income Tax; Revised return; Statutory period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 1636 of 2017 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MARY KURUVILA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.C.V.KURUVILLA, XL/5024, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031. BY ADVS.SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SMT.JISEMOL THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, OFFICE OF THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI - 2, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), RANGE-1 (NC), KOCHI - 682 018. 3.INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN, POORNIMA BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036. 4.CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 5.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES), PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001. R1-R4 BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EL WP(C).No. 1636 of 2017 (D) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1 TRUE COPY OF RETURN DATED 07.11.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28.09.2015. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO.CIT- 2/CHN/TECH/CD-192/2015-16 DATED 18.7.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.8.2016 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IT/OMB/KOCHI/GP/43/ 2016-17 DATED 26.6.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 TRUE COPY OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.9/2005 (F.NO.312/22/2015-OT) DATED 09.6.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1636 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2017 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who had preferred an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the return of income, under the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2007-08, is aggrieved by the rejection of the request by Ext.P3 order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner had, for the assessment year 2007-08, filed returns declaring an amount of Rs.5,42,000/-, which included agricultural income of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is stated that, during 2006- 07, a certain portion of the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner, in Kakkanad, was acquired by the Government, for the purposes of creating the 'INFOPARK'. But the petitioner came to know about the finality of the acquisition proceedings only in 2008, when she received an intimation from the Special Tahsildar that a compensation amount of Rs. 2,92,238/- had been granted to her, and an amount of Rs.29,809/- had been deducted towards tax deduction at source. While the petitioner had to revise the return for the year 2007-08 within a period of six years from the end of the assessment year in question, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not seek a revision of the return for the year 2007-08 till 28.09.2015, so as to includethe compensation amount received as W.P.(c).No.1636 of 2017 : 2 : part of the income for the assessment year 2007-08. Later on, with a view to getting a refund of the tax amounts deducted at source for the said year, the petitioner approached the respondents with an application for revising the returns for the year 2007-08. The 1st respondent by Ext.P3 order informed the petitioner that the return could not be revised since the statutory provisions made it very clear that a return could not be revised beyond a period six years from the end of the assessment year in question. The petitioner, aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P3, preferred a complaint before the Income Tax Ombudsman, who maintained the view taken by the authorities in Ext.P5 order. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision of the respondents as drawn out in Exts.P3 and P5 and also incidentally challenging Ext.P6 circular of the Central Board of Direct Tax, which makes it clear that the statutory period of limitation cannot be condoned by the authorities. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that inasmuch as W.P.(c).No.1636 of 2017 : 3 : Exts.P3 and P5 orders are premised on the well settled legal proposition that a statutory period of limitation under the Income Tax Act cannot be overlooked or condoned by the authorities, including this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted . Accordingly, the writ petition, in its challenge against Exts.P3 and P5 orders, and seeking a condonation of the delay in filing the revised return, fails, and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/ "