Wp(C)/16246/2021 Of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswam v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11 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.RAGHUNATHANPREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXP.B.NO.2, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, ELECTRONIC CITY P.O., BANGALORE 560500. 2INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001. BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Courtimpugning Ext.P7 order issued by the CentralisedProcessing Centre (CPC) of the Income TaxDepartment, rejecting their application forrectification, namely Ext.P6, for the reason thatthe said Authority has no jurisdiction in thematter, because the file has been transferred tothe concerned Assessing Officer. 2.The petitioner, however, says that Ext.P7records a prima facie view that the order soughtto 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 theAssessing Authority appropriately with a freshrectification application, under the provisions ofSection 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3.I have heard the learned counsel for the –petitionerSri.PremjitNagendranand Sri.Christopher Abraham – learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents. 4.Sri.Christopher Abraham conceded thatExt.P7 order has been issued only because the CPCdid not have jurisdiction, once the files had beentransferred to the Assessing Authority. He addedthat the record of the prima facie view madetherein is only on account of the fact that astandard format has been used; and added that ifthe petitioner files a proper rectificationapplication before their Assessing Authority, thesame can be considered in terms of law.5.I notice from the pleadings that the petitioner has, in fact, already approached theAssessing Authority through Ext.P8 rectificationapplication on 16.12.2020. I am, therefore, of theview that the said Authority must be now directedto consider it on its merits and issue appropriateorders without any further delay. In the afore circumstances, recording theafore submissions of Sri.Christopher Abraham, Iorder this writ petition, directing the 2ndrespondent-Income Tax Officer to take up Ext.P8rectification application of the petitioner and todispose it of, after affording them an opportunityof being heard and after following due procedure,thus culminating in an appropriate order thereonas expeditiously as is possible, but not laterthan three months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. RR Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.2.1983 OF COM. OF INCOME TAX, COCHINRE: REGN. U/S 10(23C)(V). Exhibit P2PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF EXEMPTION U/S 12ADATED 1.5.2009 ISSUED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. Exhibit P3PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR 2018.19(Y.E 31.3.2018) IN ITR-7. Exhibit P4PHOTOCOPY OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10BB DATED 27.10.2018. Exhibit P5PHOTOCOPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.11.2019 U/S 143(1) Exhibit P6PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION. Exhibit P7PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER ON EXT.P6 DATED 12.12.2019. Exhibit P8PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED IN TERMS OF EXT.-7 DATED 16.12.20.