Wp(C)/18745/2014 Of D.gopalakrishnan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18745 of 2014 (P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ D.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREEDHAR BHAVAN, TC 9/29, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O KALLAMPALLY, MAVARTHALAKON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF FORM 16 A CERTIFICATE EXT.P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2013 EXT.P3 COPY OF IT RETURN FOR YEAR 2011-2012 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY EXT.P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.11.2013 EXT.P6COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXT.P7 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13.5.2014 EXT.P8 COPY OF SUBMISSIONS DATED 27.5.2014 EXT.-P9 COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.6.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- nil. das // True copy //PA to Judge A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. =========================W.P.(C). No. 18745 of 2014=================================Dated this the 7[th] day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P9, an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, in a petition to condonedelay, an application filed under Sec.119(2)(b) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 2.The petitioner is the assessee and theassessment year related to 2011-2012. The return ofincome for assessment of the said assessment year wasfiled only on 09.10.2013, after a delay of 27 months. Thepetitioner sought for condonation of delay, which wasrejected by the authority on the ground that sufficientreason has not been shown. It is not in dispute that theauthority concerned can condone delay in filing thereturn on proper reasons to be stated. Though thepetitioner had submitted that he was suffering from backpain, no materials were produced to substantiate the W.P.(C). No.18745 of 2014 same. Petitioner relies upon Exts.P1 and P2, to indicatethat the income tax deduction was made from the LandAcquisition Compensation and was received by thepetitioner only on 01.02.2013 and thereafter since he wassuffering from ailments, he could not file the return intime. 3.Statement is filed by the learned StandingCounsel inter-alia stating that Ext.P9 order has beenpassed after considering the facts and merits of the caseand the authority had given sufficient opportunity to thepetitioner which was not availed of by the petitioner. 4.Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation,the petitioner ought to have produced sufficient materialsbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax for condonationof delay. In the said circumstances, I am of the view thatone more opportunity can be given to the petitioner tosubstantiate his grievance, in the matter relating tocondonation of delay. W.P.(C). No.18745 of 2014 5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of asunder: 6.Ext.P9 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application forcondonation of delay afresh after giving an opportunity tothe petitioner of being heard. Petitioner shall, in themeantime, produce sufficient material in the form of anaffidavit and documents, if any, before the respondent,within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. Appropriate orders in this regardshall be passed within another two months thereafter. W.P.(C). No.18745 of 2014 5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of asunder: 6.Ext.P9 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application forcondonation of delay afresh after giving an opportunity tothe petitioner of being heard. Petitioner shall, in themeantime, produce sufficient material in the form of anaffidavit and documents, if any, before the respondent,within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. Appropriate orders in this regardshall be passed within another two months thereafter. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUEJUDGE das