PRABHAKARAN K.B V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/21324/2013

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner's grievance against the rejection of his delay condonation application for not filing his income tax return on time for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner, an agriculturist, received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act during the financial year 2005-06, which necessitated filing a return to claim a refund of tax deducted at source. Both the petitioner and his wife were undergoing medical treatments during the period of delay. The initial rejection by the Commissioner of Income Tax was contested on the grounds that it did not adequately consider the petitioner's medical condition and the circumstances under which the delay occurred. The court's decision emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration of the case, taking into account all relevant documents and personal circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 743982 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T K KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Delay condonation; Income Tax Return; Land Acquisition; Medical treatment; TDS Certificate
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 21324 of 2013 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ PRABHAKARAN K.B., AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTAKKALIL HOUSE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 21324 of 2013 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORD OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORD OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOWING THE FILING OF THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT-P4. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT-P4 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 21324 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 7th August, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of the delay condonation application filed, for condoning the delay occasioned in filing a return for the assessment year 2006-07. The impugned order is produced at Ext.P6. The learned counsel would contend that in fact, both the petitioner and his wife were under treatment and hence the petitioner could not file a return in time as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is contended that the petitioner is an agriculturist and ordinarily is not an assessee under the Act. In the financial year 2005-06, the petitioner received certain amounts with respect to an acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act and that alone necessitated filing of return again, for the purpose of claiming refund of the WP(C).21324/13 2 tax deducted at source. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no consideration of the documents evidenced from Ext.P6 which alone mandates a remand and a consequent direction for fresh consideration. 2. The learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes), would however contend that even as per the report of the Assessing Officer indicated at Ext.P5, the TDS certificate was issued as early as on 27.05.2005 and the medical records produced are all of a later date. In such circumstances, the learned counsel would seek to sustain Ext.P6 order on the ground that the discretion exercised by the Commissioner is not to be interfered with by this Court on the documents produced along with the writ petition. 3. Ext.P6 does not contain any discussion and merely records that the case has been WP(C).21324/13 3 discussed with the authorized representative and there is no reason why the belated filing of return should be accepted. On going through the medical records produced, it is revealed that the wife of the petitioner had been suffering from different ailments as is evidenced by Ext.P1 series of documents. But that alone cannot be a reason for non-filing of the return within the time provided under the Act. 4. Ext.P2 series further indicates that the petitioner was afflicted with 'Acute Intermittant Porphyria'; “a decease of the blood causing mental problems and makes the skin sensitive” (Oxford Dictionary). Considering the nature of the illness of the petitioner which he has been afflicted with, right from 2003 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has not properly exercised the discretion as evidenced from Ext.P6, especially WP(C).21324/13 4 since the petitioner is said to have produced the entire documents before the Commissioner. It is submitted that the Chartered Accountant, at the time of hearing, had produced the entire materials before the Commissioner, which however, has not been noticed by the Commissioner. 5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is deemed fit that the ends of justice would be served in directing the Commissioner to re-consider the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in accordance with Instruction No.13 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006. The Commissioner shall pass a speaking order indicating the consideration of the documents and for that purpose, petitioner or his authorized representative shall appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the 2nd respondent herein, on or before 21.08.2014 and WP(C).21324/13 5 also file the documents which the petitioner would rely on the hearing. Ext.P6 is set aside and the Commissioner is directed to re-consider the same after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner; within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner or the authorized representative. Writ petition allowed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy// "