V.SANKARANARAYANAN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/13691/2013

AI Insights

The petitioner, V. Sankaranarayanan, sought a direction from the Kerala High Court for the Income Tax Officer to consider his representation for a tax exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to an amount received under the Early Retirement Option Scheme, 2013. Initially, the Income Tax Officer processed the petitioner's return and issued a refund but did not consider the revised return filed later, claiming additional refund. The court found that the revised return was filed beyond the due date and without condoning the delay, thus not accepting it. However, considering similar cases where exemptions were granted, the court allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699774 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India [2008(1) KLT 589]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: MEENA A
• Keywords: Early Retirement Option Scheme; Income tax exemption; Refund; Revised return
• Section: 244A; 10(10C)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 13691 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- V.SANKARANARAYANAN S/O.VEERAMANI IYER,RESIDING AT 'SWATHI' HOUSE NO.11/284, THACHOTTUKAVU, MALAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 571. BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.A. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVALLA 689 101 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, THIRUVALLA 689 101 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 13691 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN DATED 18/8/2004 EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED RETURN DATED 11/2/2010 EXHIBIT P3: A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2009 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6997-702 OF 2009 EXHIBIT P4: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/8/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH, IN ITA NO.232/MDS/2010 EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE JUDGEMNT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT INWA (MD) NO:1098/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 13/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE(CETRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) (ITA - I DIVISION) RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.13691 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2 representation. 2. Ext.P2 is a representation submitted by the petitioner inter alia contending that he was entitled for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act') with reference to the amount received by him under the Early Retirement Option Scheme, 2013 (EROS). According to the petitioner, he was working in ICICI Bank during the financial year 2003-'04 and he filed a return without claiming exemption. The Income Tax authorities had intimated the petitioner by way of Ext.P1 that, after deducting the tax payable, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.56,210/- which was paid to the petitioner. In Ext.P2, it is stated that the balance tax refundable after adjusting the amount received as refund would be Rs.1,28,950/-. 3. Petitioner relies upon the judgments, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 to contend that the petitioner was eligible to get exemption. W.P.C.No.13691/2013 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, in several instances, the Apex Court as well as the High Court of Madras had directed grant of exemption to similarly placed persons and therefore the petitioner should also get the aforesaid benefit. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India [2008(1) KLT 589]. 5. On the other hand, a statement is filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent inter alia stating that since the jurisdiction over the case vests with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, the return of income was processed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 on 30/03/2005 and issued a refund of Rs.53,030/- and interest under Section 244A of Rs.3,180/-. Subsequently, on 18/02/2010, the assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 2004-05 offering a reduced total income of Rs.5,13,520/- and claimed additional refund of Rs.1,28,950/-. Since the revised return of income has been filed beyond the due date for filing a valid return, no action was taken. In so far as no document has been produced for condoning the delay in filing the revised return, the same was not W.P.C.No.13691/2013 3 accepted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. It is apparent that the revised return was filed out of time. Even if there is some provision under the IT Act to condone the delay, still no steps had been taken by the petitioner to approach either the Board or the competent Commissioner of Income Tax seeking for exemption within the specified time, whereas an attempt had been made to file a revised return, that too, after a period of five years. Under such circumstances, I do not think that this Court will be justified in directing Ext.P2 to be considered. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in Exts.P3, P4 and P5 to indicate that such benefit had been given to various other similarly placed persons. The question whether the petitioner is also a person entitled for the very same benefit, is a question of fact, which requires to be considered. 8. The short question is whether there is any procedure by which the petitioner can make such a claim. However, taking into account the fact that similarly placed persons have been W.P.C.No.13691/2013 4 given the benefit of refund, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, who has jurisdiction to entertain such matters and it is for the said authority to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders, especially in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and Madras High Court as stipulated in Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and Ext.P6 circular. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under: i) Petitioner is permitted to file a representation to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) On receipt of such representation, the Commissioner of Income Tax shall consider the matter in the light of the judgments, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and the Circular, Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr "