Wa/1869/2010 Of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Kerala State Bamboo Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1869 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15652/2004 Dated 27/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 -------------------------------- 1. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-II, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, ALUVA. 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI. 4. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD., ANGAMALLY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1869 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant-department.Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned single Judge directingthe Department to consider respondent's claim for refund based on thereturn filed. Standing counsel submitted that application filed forentertaining belated return for refund was rejected by the Board ofRevenue. However, the learned single Judge found that respondentsuccessfully explained the reasons for the delay as attributable to delayin completion of audit of accounts of the respondent. The peculiarfeature that we notice in this case is that respondent is a KeralaGovernment undertaking engaged in production of bamboo productswherein raw material is supplied by tribals from the forest. We feelrespondent's case calls for lenient consideration at the hands of theIncome tax Department. We therefore do not find any merit in theappeal filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge. WA 1869/2010 2 Consequently we dismiss the appeal. However, time fixed by thelearned single Judge is extended by three months from now. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk