SMT. AMBIKA PANKAJAKSHAN V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/30100/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Ambika Pankajakshan, who challenged the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to condone the delay in filing her income tax return for the assessment year 2012-13. The delay was attributed to the late receipt of the TDS certificate, which was necessary for filing the return. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the tax authorities and not by her. The court examined the circumstances of the delay and the responsibilities of the tax authorities in issuing the TDS certificate. The judgment emphasized that the correctness of the return should be assessed by the assessing authority, not the Commissioner at this stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 765940 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; V K SHAMSUDHEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR; P J ANILKUMAR; G MINI; P S SREE PRASAD; JACOB JOHN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax Refund; Land acquisition compensation; TDS certificate delay
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 30100 of 2016 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- SMT. AMBIKA PANKAJAKSHAN, W/O.LATE PANKAJAKSHAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHENGALOOR P.O., PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 312. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SRI.JACOB JOHN (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 [4], AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA [G] NO.1, PALAKKAD - 679 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 30100 of 2016 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED 4021/1196 OF THE SRO PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR TO THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD DATED 11.5.11, COMMUNICATING TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 8.6.11. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 1.8.12. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE PAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR PALAKKAD DATED 10.4.15. EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE FORM 16A DATED 26.3.15. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28.4.15. EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.6.16. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30100 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to condone delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order reads under : “The assessee had submitted a petition on 28.04.2014 for condonation of delay in filing of return for the A.Y.2012- 13. In the petition it is stated “I am enclosing herewith my income tax return for the assessment year 2012-13. As per my return a sum of Rs.72,490/- is due to me as income tax refund. Even though the tax has been deducted at source during the financial year 2011-12 the TDS certificate in respect of acquisition compensation was received by me only on 10.04.2015. Hence I could not file the return before the due date. I request you to be kind enough to condone the delay in filing the return and issue the refund.” 2. I have carefully considered the petition of the assessee. The AO's report is devoid of detail. There is a mention of a building in the order of acquisition which valued at Rs.71,000/-. Hence, how the rate of Rs.2,45,000/- was adjusted by assessee is not known. Further there is no detail of other income of that year by the assessee. The assessee was an insurance agent. It is unbelievable that she was serving only on an income of Rs.717/-. Hence, the income of property given is not a true. Hence, delay is not condoned.” W.P.(C).No.30100 of 2016 2 2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the Commissioner ought to have considered the question as to whether the delay could be condoned, whereas, the correctness of the return, etc are matters to be considered by the assessing authority. 3. The facts involved in the case would show that the petitioner was paid compensation under the Land Acquisition Act by deducting tax at source. 72,422/- was the tax that was deducted ₹ and deposited before the Income Tax authorities. However, there was delay on the part of the authorities in providing the TDS certificate, which resulted in the delay in submitting the return. 4. The question to be considered was whether there was sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. In Ext.P9 it was clearly stated that though the tax was deducted at source during financial year 2011-12, the TDS certificate in respect of the acquisition compensation was received only on 10.04.2015. The application to condone the delay was filed on 28.04.2015. It is apparent from Ext.P9 itself that the petitioner is not responsible for the delay and therefore, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed as under : Ext.P10 is set aside. The delay in filing the return is hereby condoned and claim for refund is entertained. The assessing officer shall consider the return filed by W.P.(C).No.30100 of 2016 3 the petitioner, consider the claim for refund and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. AV "