M/S. PALANATTIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. UNION OF INDIA

WA/1460/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Palanattil Construction Company, represented by its managing partner P.P. Paulose, who appealed against the dismissal of their writ petition by a single Judge of the High Court of Kerala. The writ petition challenged the rejection of their request for adjustment of certain amounts allegedly due from the department against their tax liability for the assessment year 2002-03. The department had rejected the request citing the outer time limit of 6 years for such claims under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which the appellant had exceeded. The High Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the department's stance and the learned single Judge's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722407 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M RAMASWAMY PILLAI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2002-03; Income Tax; Writ Appeal; Adjustment Request
• Section: 148; 144; 119(2)(b); 142

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WA.No. 1460 of 2014 () IN WP(C).33095/2010 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33095/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-08-2014 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- M/S. PALANATTIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, REVIEW BUILDING, KURISSADI JUNCTION, NALANCHIRA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.P.PAULOSE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES, NEW DELHI-110011. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECH), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 4. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. 5. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695004. 6. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 110011. (ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 23.11.2010 IN IA 15713/2010 IN W.P.33095/10) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. =============================== Writ Appeal No. 1460 of 2014 ==================== Dated this the 31st day of October, 2014 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. Appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.33095/2010. He has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed mainly challenging Ext.P6, whereby his request for adjustment as prayed for in Ext.P5 was declined. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Essentially what the appellant wants is an adjustment of certain amounts which are allegedly due to him from the department towards his liability of tax for the assessment year 2002-03. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, despite the notices issued under Sections 148 and 142 of the Income Tax Act, since there was no response from the appellant, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act as per Ext.P1 order. It was thereafter that the assessee has filed the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, a copy of W.A.No.1460/14 : 2 : which is Ext.P5 where he sought adjustment of certain amounts which are claimed to be due. It was this request that was rejected by the department by Ext.P6. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, as per instruction No.13/2006 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, outer time limit of 6 years is provided for making any claims under the said section. Admittedly, Ext.P5 claim was made beyond the said time limit. Even as on date, the assessee has not filed any return concerning the assessment year 2002-03 and in the absence of any return, we cannot maintain a claim for adjustment or refund. 5. In sum and substance, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned single Judge. Writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge "