The A.P. State Trading Corporation, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Hyderabad and The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad and The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi

WP/9035/2007

AI Insights

The case involves the A.P. State Trading Corporation, which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which rejected their revised income tax return for the assessment year 1999-2000 as being filed belatedly. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the representation submitted by the petitioner was not considered in a timely manner by the Board, leading to the decision to set aside the Board's order and direct a reconsideration of the petitioner's case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814469 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, Section 154 of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KOUNDINYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Mandamus; Revised return; Technicalities
• Section: 154; 143(1); 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9035 of 2007 Between: The A.P. State Trading Corporation, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the order of the 3rd respondent U/Sec.119 (2) (b) bearing ref.No.F.No.312/180/2006-OT dated 29.11.2006 as bad, illegal and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the respondents to take on file the revised return dated 22.3.2002 filed by the petitioner-corporation for the assessment year 1999-2000. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:9035 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the order of the 3rd respondent U/Sec.119 (2)(b) bearing ref.No.F.No.312/180/2006-OT dated 29.11.2006 as bad, illegal and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the respondents to take on file the revised return dated 22.3.2002 filed by the petitioner-corporation for the assessment year 1999-2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the Assessing Officer issued an intimation, dated 31.1.2000 under Section 143 (1) of the IT Act, for the assessment year 1999-2000. Subsequently, after completion of the statutory audit, the petitioner filed a Revised return seeking rectification of the intimation. While so, the assessing officer suo motu took up modification of the intimation issued by him under section 154 seeking to disallow certain expenses/allowances claimed by the Corporation and passed orders on 31.3.2004 raising a demand. The Assessing Officer also rejected the revised return filed by the assessee on the ground that it was being lodged treating the same as invalid for having been filed belatedly. On that, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Commissioner of Income tax, Range-I, requesting to give appropriate directions to the assessing Officer afresh taking into account the revised return. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the revision application. On 4.2.2005, the petitioner made an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad seeking condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income. As there was no response, the petitioner filed another application dated 23.12.2005 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, on which, the petitioner was directed to submit a written representation along with the necessary documents on or before 30.10.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner requested for extension of time upto 15.11.2006 for filing its written submissions and on 15.11.2006, the petitioner submitted its written submissions. But however, the same was rejected observing that though an opportunity was given to the petitioner, it did not submit any reply even after expiry of the time extended by it. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of Income, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, directed the petitioner to make a written representation along with documents in support of its claim on or before 30.10.2006 and thereafter, the petitioner requested the Board for extension of time for filing written submissions upto 15.11.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted its representation on 15.11.2006, but the Board rejected its petition on the ground that the applicant did not submit a reply even after expiry of the extended time. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Board to consider its representation dated 15.11.2006. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that the petitioner submitted its representation on 15.11.2006. But it is the case of the Board that it is not submitted in time. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the quantum of the assessment, We feel that the matter in issue has to be adjudicated on its own merits but not on mere technicalities. In this view of the matter, We feel it just and proper to direct the 3rd respondent-Board to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioner on 15.11.2006, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.11.2006. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G. Rohini Date: 18th February, 2008 Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:9035 OF 2007 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 18.2.2008 "