Wp(C)/1636/2017 Of Mary Kuruvila v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939 PETITIONER(S): ------------- WP(C).No. 1636 of 2017 (D) --------------------------- MARY KURUVILA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.C.V.KURUVILLA, XL/5024, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031. BY ADVS.SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SMT.JISEMOL THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, OFFICE OF THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI - 2, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), RANGE-1 (NC), KOCHI - 682 018. 3.INCOME TAX OMBUDSMAN, POORNIMA BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036. KOCHI - 682 036. 4.CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 5.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES), PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001. R1-R4 BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIXPETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF RETURN DATED 07.11.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28.09.2015.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO.CIT-2/CHN/TECH/CD-192/2015-16 DATED 18.7.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.8.2016 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IT/OMB/KOCHI/GP/43/ 2016-17 DATED 26.6.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.P6 TRUE COPY OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.9/2005 (F.NO.312/22/2015-OT) DATED 09.6.2015.RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------NIL TRUE COPYP.S. TO JUDGEEL A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1636 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2017 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who had preferred an application seekingcondonation of the delay in filing the return of income, under theIncome Tax Act, for the assessment year 2007-08, is aggrieved bythe rejection of the request by Ext.P3 order of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax. The facts in the writ petition wouldindicate that the petitioner had, for the assessment year 2007-08,filed returns declaring an amount of Rs.5,42,000/-, which includedagricultural income of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is stated that, during 2006-07, a certain portion of the agricultural land belonging to thepetitioner, in Kakkanad, was acquired by the Government, for thepurposes of creating the 'INFOPARK'. But the petitioner came toknow about the finality of the acquisition proceedings only in 2008,when she received an intimation from the Special Tahsildar that acompensation amount of Rs. 2,92,238/- had been granted to her,and an amount of Rs.29,809/- had been deducted towards taxdeduction at source. While the petitioner had to revise the returnfor the year 2007-08 within a period of six years from the end of theassessment year in question, it is not in dispute that the petitionerdid not seek a revision of the return for the year 2007-08 till28.09.2015, so as to includethe compensation amount received as part of the income for the assessment year 2007-08. Later on, with aview to getting a refund of the tax amounts deducted at source for thesaid year, the petitioner approached the respondents with anapplication for revising the returns for the year 2007-08. The 1[st]respondent by Ext.P3 order informed the petitioner that the returncould not be revised since the statutory provisions made it very clearthat a return could not be revised beyond a period six years from theend of the assessment year in question. The petitioner, aggrieved bythe stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P3, preferred a complaintbefore the Income Tax Ombudsman, who maintained the view takenby the authorities in Ext.P5 order. It is under these circumstances,that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decisionof the respondents as drawn out in Exts.P3 and P5 and alsoincidentally challenging Ext.P6 circular of the Central Board of DirectTax, which makes it clear that the statutory period of limitationcannot be condoned by the authorities. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseand the submissions made across the bar, I find that inasmuch as Exts.P3 and P5 orders are premised on the well settled legalproposition that a statutory period of limitation under the Income TaxAct cannot be overlooked or condoned by the authorities, includingthis Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in thewrit petition cannot be granted . Accordingly, the writ petition, in its challenge against Exts.P3and P5 orders, and seeking a condonation of the delay in filing therevised return, fails, and is accordingly dismissed. sm/ Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE