RAM BAHADU THAKUR LTD. V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/10210/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Bahadu Thakur Ltd., a public limited company, which faced internal management disputes preventing the finalization of its accounts. To comply with Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, the company filed provisional returns for the assessment year 1997-98, which were deemed invalid by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The company, after receiving permission from the Company Law Board to finalize its accounts, filed a revision petition against the Joint Commissioner's order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The company then filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal and seeking a fresh consideration of its case with the newly finalized accounts. The court's decision to set aside the Commissioner’s order and remand the case for reconsideration was based on the need to provide the petitioner an adequate opportunity to present its case, including the newly applicable accounts and relevant tribunal orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750500 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.37524/2008, WPC No.22583 of 2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: N KOSHY
• Keywords: Adequate Opportunity; Balance sheet; Income Tax; Revisional Authority; Writ petition; Provisional profit and loss
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10210 OF 2011 PETITIONER/S: RAM BAHADU THAKUR LTD. SIDDHARTH BUILDING, WILLINGDON ISLAND,, COCHIN- 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS, DIRECTOR MR.S.M.SHARMA. BY ADV SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD,, KOCHI-682 018. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD,, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 10210 of 2011 ============================================================= Dated this the 4th day of November, 2022 JUDGMEN T The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: “i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P6 and P10 Orders and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, direction or order. ii) direct the 2nd Respondent assessing officer to consider the return filed by the Petitioner afresh after taking on record the audited Profit & Loss Accounts and Balance Sheet prepared by the Petitioner pursuant to Order dated 11-4-2007 of the CLB in CA No. 136 of 2007 in CP 56 of 1996 (ii) pass such other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (sic) 2. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is the case of the petitioner that due to certain disputes within the management of the petitioner company, the accounts of the petitioner company could not be finalised. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner in order to -3- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 adhere to the mandate provided under section 139 of the Income Tax Act filed its returns for the assessment year 1997-98 based on a provisional profit and loss and balance sheet. But, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax treated it as an invalid return. It is the case of the petitioner that the company law board had also restrained the petitioner from finalising its accounts from 1995- 96 onwards till the petition before the company law board is disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner approached the company law board seeking permission for signing the accounts and the same was granted to the petitioner. After finalising the accounts, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax against the Order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. But the said petition was dismissed by the Commissioner as per Ext.P10. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. -4- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the revisional authority dismissed the revision without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to raise the contentions raised in the revision memorandum. The petitioner is relying Ext.P11 order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a similar situation as far as the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 are concerned. The Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and it is clear from paragraph 2 of Ext.P10 order. The counsel submitted that even in the absence of the petitioner, the revisional authority considered the matter in detail and passed Ext.P10 order and there is nothing to interfere. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. It is clear from a reading of paragraph 2 of Ext.P10 that sufficient opportunity was given by the revisional authority to the petitioner. But the petitioner has got a case that -5- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 the revisional authority has not considered Ext.P11 order passed by the Appellate Authority while deciding the matter. I don’t want to make any observation about the merits of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised in this writ petition. All the contentions raised in this writ petition on merit, are left open to be raised before the revisional authority. To facilitate the revisional authority to reconsider the matter, Ext.P10 can be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P10 is set aside. 2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. 3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free -6- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 to raise all the contentions, including the applicability of Ext.P11 order. 4. Till final orders are passed by the revisional authority, status quo as on today shall continue. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das -7- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10210/2011 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.1.1997 OF THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI IN C P NO.56/1996. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.08.2000 PASSED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI IN C P NO.56/1996. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 28.11.1997 FOR FILING THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 . Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE INTERIM BOARD MEETING DATED 18.11.1997. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.03.1999 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE-1, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF C A NO.136 OF 2007 IN C P 56 OF 1996 ALONG WITH THE ORDER THEREIN DATED 11.04.2007. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR 1997-98. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 3.4.2008 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997- 98. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.5.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.2.2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.37524/2008. -8- W.P.(C). No. 10210 of 2011 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2011N SENT BY THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TO M/S. BAL PHARMA LIMITED. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.09.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), RANGE-1, KOCHI TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PRAYER'S COUNTERFOIL DATED 22.11.2008. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 09.04.2015 AND ATTACHMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENT SAMUDRA MAHAL, MUMBAI DATED 13.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 13.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.22583 OF 2011 DATED 23.08.2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER RULE 45 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES IN FORM NO.35 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ENAKULAM. "