SREE CHAMUNDI DEVI TEMPLE TRUST V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2844/2019

AI Insights

The case involves the Sree Chamundi Devi Temple Trust, a public religious trust, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer for procedural irregularities in the assessment of its income tax return for the year 2016. The trust argued that it received a notice for the assessment only in the afternoon of December 27, 2018, the day of the scheduled hearing, which did not provide sufficient time to prepare and submit necessary documents. Despite this, the Income Tax Officer proceeded with the assessment on December 31, 2018, allegedly to circumvent the issue of limitation. The court, acknowledging the trust's claim of insufficient notice and its subsequent prompt action to seek an extension, decided to set aside the assessment order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754978 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSEPH MARKOSE; ALEXANDER MARKOS; SHARAD KODANTHARA; ABRAHAM MARKOS; ISAAC THOMAS; V MARKOS
• Keywords: Assessment; Assessment Order; Hearing; Income Tax Return; Notice; Objections; Public religious trust
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 11TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 2844 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SREE CHAMUNDI DEVI TEMPLE TRUST THOZHUVANCODE CHAMUNDI TEMPLE, THOZHUVANCODE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM-695 013. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.BOBANLAL V.S BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS RESPONDENT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD, AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a public religious trust. For the assessment year 2016, it filed the income tax return. Later, in response to a notice issued by the authorities under Section 142 (1), the petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply. Nevertheless, under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner received another notice requiring it to produce its vouchers and bills in support of the return and also to show cause why for certain additions, disallowances should not be made. 2. Though the hearing was scheduled for 27.12.2018 at 11 AM, the petitioner asserts that it received the notice only in the afternoon of that day. Therefore, the very next day the petitioner submitted its objections, besides seeking ten more days time to produce the documents. But the respondent authority went ahead and completed the assessment on 31.12.2018, perhaps—as the petitioner pleads—to avoid the problem of limitation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent authority. -3- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019 4. Indeed, as it remains uncontradicted, the petitioner received the notice only in the afternoon of 27.12.2018, though the hearing was supposed to be at 11 Am. As an element of bona fide conduct on the petitioner's part, I notice that the very next day the petitioner filed its objections and sought ten more days time. Perhaps to avoid the technical tangles, the respondent authority completed the assessment proceedings by 31.12.2018. 5. Under these circumstances, it will only serves the interest of justice if the petitioner is given one more opportunity. I, therefore, set aside the Ext.P6 assessment order and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh adjudication. 6. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel proposes that if the Court fixes a date, the Income Tax Officer will take up the matter on that date, when the petitioner's representative could appear before the authority. I reckon the proposal is feasible. I, therefore, as a matter of mutual convenience for the parties, fix 26.02.2018 as the date of hearing before the Income Tax Officer. Without further notice, the petitioner's representative will appear on -4- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019 that date before the authority, who then will proceed further with the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 25/04/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12/10/2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21/10/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/12/2018 UNDER SECTION 143(2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 28/12/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. -5- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. "