Wp/8203/2017 Of The Bharat Co -Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THER 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2018| BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8203/2017 (TIT) BETWEEN: THER BHARAT CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIDNo.30, lo CROSS, 3) BLOCKJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE- 5600011REP. BY ITS SKHCREBTARY &AUTHORIZED SINGATORY Mr. SRINIVAS NAGESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS9/O P.R.NAGESH. | _.. PETITIONER| IBY SRI E.SHIVAPRASAD, ADV.} AND: 1.THERE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXRANGE No.7, 9 FLOOR, ©BMTC BUILDINGKORAMANGALA,BANGALORE — 560095. RANGE No.7, 9 FLOOR, ©BMTC BUILDINGKORAMANGALA,BANGALORE — 560095. «|THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7 (2) (1)," FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, |KORAMANGALA |BANGALORE — 560095. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7 (2) (1)," FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, |KORAMANGALA |BANGALORE — 560095. 3.|THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTION CIRCLE, 17/2," FLOOR, INCOME TAX BUILDING,INFANTRY ROAD.BANGALORE —- 560001.EXEMPTION CIRCLE, 17/2," FLOOR, INCOME TAX BUILDING,INFANTRY ROAD.BANGALORE —- 560001. 4THERE DEPUTLY COMMISSIONER OINCOME TAX CIRCLE4 (1),INCOME TAX CIRCLE4 (1), -9.- [‘T]FLOOR, UNITY BUILDINGANNEX, MISSION ROAD.BANGALORE —- 56001 /~. RESPONDENTS IBY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PRTITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND|22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTTHR R-] TO 4 AUTHORITIES FOR PROCBSSING THE TAX)RETURNS FILED BY THR PRTITIONBR IN FORM NO _JITR-DTD.30.9.2009 VIDE ANNEX-A AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED IN-FORM NO .JTR-5 VIDE ANNEX-B DTD.19.8.2011 FOR THEASSEHKSSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND TO REFUND THE AMOUNT ORs.10,84,473/- AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURNS ALONG WITH.INTERESIT TO THE PETITIONER WITH IMMEBDIAITB KRFRFECIBITC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of therespondent authorities in not processing the tax returns filed by the petitioner in Form No.ITR-7 dated30.09.2009 vide Annexure-A and subsequently filed in Form No.[ITR-5 vide Annexure-B dated 19.08.2011relating to the assessment year 2009-10 and to refundthe amount of Rs.10,84,473/- as claimed in the returns -3- along with interest to the petitioner, interalia seeking fora direction to the respondents to consider therepresentations at Annexures-C, D & E submitted bythe petitioner for acceptance of the returns filed for theassessment year 2009-10 in accordance with law.| 2 |The petitioner, Co-operative Bank is anincome tax assessee and has filed its income tax return|for the assessment year 2009-10 well within the time on30.09.2009 inadvertently in Form No.ITR-7 and hasclaimed for refund of Rs.10,84,473/- being advanceexcess tax amount paid by the petitioner. It iscontended that on noticing the same, again fresh returnwas filed in the required format ITR-o relating to thesaid assessment order on 19.08.2011 in electronic form|and manually on 02.09.2011. It is the grievance of thepetitioner that the income tax return filed by thepetitioner was neither processed nor the claim forrefund of the excess advance tax paid has been -4- adjudicatedupon,despiteseveralrequestletters/representations submitted by the petitionerbefore the respondent authorities. It is contended thatwithout there being any justifiable reasons or grounds,respondent authorities have failed to process the incometax return submitted. 3.|Learnedcounsel sri.E.Shivaprasad,appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the groundsurged in the writ petition, placing reliance on thejudgment,oT|thisCourtIntheCaSCoT|A.BALAKRISHNANV/s.GENERALMANAGER,HINDUSTANMACHINETOOLSLTD.,ANDTHECOMMTSSIONER,INCOMETAX2?reported1nLAWS(KAR) 2007 2 S7'and the judgment of BombayHigh Court in the case ofCRAWFORD BAYLEY ANDCo., V/S. UNION OF INDIA>reported inLAWS(BOM)Q2OL1lI] IZ, would contend that the respondentwould have intimated the assessee/petitioner if the -5- -4- adjudicatedupon,despiteseveralrequestletters/representations submitted by the petitionerbefore the respondent authorities. It is contended thatwithout there being any justifiable reasons or grounds,respondent authorities have failed to process the incometax return submitted. 3.|Learnedcounsel sri.E.Shivaprasad,appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the groundsurged in the writ petition, placing reliance on thejudgment,oT|thisCourtIntheCaSCoT|A.BALAKRISHNANV/s.GENERALMANAGER,HINDUSTANMACHINETOOLSLTD.,ANDTHECOMMTSSIONER,INCOMETAX2?reported1nLAWS(KAR) 2007 2 S7'and the judgment of BombayHigh Court in the case ofCRAWFORD BAYLEY ANDCo., V/S. UNION OF INDIA>reported inLAWS(BOM)Q2OL1lI] IZ, would contend that the respondentwould have intimated the assessee/petitioner if the -5- returns of the income furnished by the assessee isdefective. It is further contended that no applicationunder Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act is required to befiled for condoning the delay in filing the returns in thecircumstances of the case. | 4Learned counsel Sri.K.V.Aravind, appearingfor the Revenue would contend that the grievance status_as on 12.12.2016 at Annexure-J to the writ petitionwould reveal that the assessee/petitioner has failed tosubstantiate fresh returns filed in ITR-o electronicallyon 19.08.2011 and manually on 02.09.2011. ITR-9—enclosed with the grievance petition does not bear thesignature and office seal of the concerned for havingreceived the same. The assessee/petitioner is claimingrefund without furnishing the valid return in time.Reliance is also placed on Section 139(5) of the Act. 5 |In view of the atoresaid submissions made| by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent -6- that there is serious dispute relating to the filing of theForm No.ITR-5 before the Authorities. However, it is not)in dispute that the original return in ITR-7 was filed wellin time on 30.09.2009. It was obligatory on the part oftherespondentauthoritiesCO intimatethe|petitioner/assessee if the same was defective, moreparticularly, when repeated requests/representations—were made by the petitioner/assessee to consider thereturn filed. 6. In the circumstances, without expressingany opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, thisCourt deems it appropriate to direct the respondentauthorities to consider the representations dated19.08.2011, 02.09.2011, 08.06.2012 and 13.09.2012 atAnnexures-B, C, D and FE respectively, relating to theassessment year 2009-10 and pass appropriate ordersin accordance with law, aiter hearing the petitioner asexpeditiously as possible in any event not later than ��-���� D!E'�J88K5�D'!H�:78�@=:8�!D�'8C8;9:�!D�:78�C8':;D;8@�C!9B� !D�:78�!'@8'�� 3;:7�:78�=D!'85=;@�!A58'?=:;!<5��:78�98:;:;!<�5:=<@5�"#$%&$'"�&(�� ���� ����������