SREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWAM V. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/16246/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswam, represented by Mrs. Sujatha, challenging the order (Ext.P7) from the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) of the Income Tax Department, which rejected their rectification application (Ext.P6) on jurisdictional grounds. The CPC's order was based on a standard format, mistakenly recording a prima facie view of no error in the original order. The petitioner had previously filed a rectification application (Ext.P8) with the Assessing Authority, which was not addressed. The court heard arguments from both parties and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner's application on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689745 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAGHUNATHAN; PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
• Keywords: Assessment; Exemption; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Rectification Application
• Section: 154; 143(1); 12A; 10(23c)(v)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16246 OF 2021 PETITIONER: SREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWAM KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM-676 553, KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MRS. SUJATHA. BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX P.B.NO.2, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, ELECTRONIC CITY P.O., BANGALORE 560500. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001. BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16246/21 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) of the Income Tax Department, rejecting their application for rectification, namely Ext.P6, for the reason that the said Authority has no jurisdiction in the matter, because the file has been transferred to the concerned Assessing Officer. 2. The petitioner, however, says that Ext.P7 records a prima facie view that the order sought to be rectified is without error and therefore, prays that the same be set aside to that extent; with liberty being granted to them to approach the Assessing Authority appropriately with a fresh rectification application, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the WPC 16246/21 3 petitioner – Sri.Premjit Nagendran and Sri.Christopher Abraham – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Sri.Christopher Abraham conceded that Ext.P7 order has been issued only because the CPC did not have jurisdiction, once the files had been transferred to the Assessing Authority. He added that the record of the prima facie view made therein is only on account of the fact that a standard format has been used; and added that if the petitioner files a proper rectification application before their Assessing Authority, the same can be considered in terms of law. 5. I notice from the pleadings that the petitioner has, in fact, already approached the Assessing Authority through Ext.P8 rectification application on 16.12.2020. I am, therefore, of the view that the said Authority must be now directed to consider it on its merits and issue appropriate orders without any further delay. WPC 16246/21 4 In the afore circumstances, recording the afore submissions of Sri.Christopher Abraham, I order this writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent-Income Tax Officer to take up Ext.P8 rectification application of the petitioner and to dispose it of, after affording them an opportunity of being heard and after following due procedure, thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WPC 16246/21 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16246/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.2.1983 OF COM. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN RE: REGN. U/S 10(23C)(V). Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF EXEMPTION U/S 12A DATED 1.5.2009 ISSUED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR 2018.19(Y.E 31.3.2018) IN ITR-7. Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10BB DATED 27.10.2018. Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.11.2019 U/S 143(1) Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION. Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER ON EXT.P6 DATED 12.12.2019. Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED IN TERMS OF EXT.-7 DATED 16.12.20. "