Wp(C)/23384/2018 Of K.v.george v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23384 of 2018 PETITIONER: K.V.GEORGEAGED 60 YEARSS/O. VARGHESE, KOTTARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,,MARKET ROAD, EDAPPALY P.O., KOCHI-682024 BY ADVS.SRI.DEEPU THANKANSMT.NIMMY JOHNSONSMT.UMMUL FIDASRI.A.ABDUL NABEEL RESPONDENTS: 1COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAMCENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD,KOCHI-682 018CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD,KOCHI-682 018 2ASSESSING OFFICERNON CORP WARD I(2),KOCHI-682 018NON CORP WARD I(2),KOCHI-682 018 3UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK,NEW-DELHI-110 001REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Addl.R4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCPC CENTRE, BELLARI ROADCPC CENTRE, BELLARI ROAD GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560001 Addl.R5 CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXESNORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001 Addl.R4 AND R5 WERE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.09.2018 IN I.A. NO.1/2018 BY ADVS.SRI.KMV.PANDALAISRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OTHER PRESENT: WP(C).No. 23384 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, an IT assessee, received compensation for hisproperty the Government acquired. And that income was asessed to tax.Eventually, the petitioner filed the Ext.P6 annual return for theassessment year 2015-2016, seeking refund of Rs.4,71,72,580/- paidearlier as advance tax. 2.The respondent Department treated the petitioner's requestfor re-fund as invalid because the Department allegedly did notreceive the Ext.P6 return, though it was found uploaded earlier.Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3.The petitioner's counsel contends that the Departmentitself permits an assessee to send the physical copies of the returnsthrough ordinary post. According to him, the petitioner did complywith the direction and sent the returns through ordinary post. As itwas an ordinary post, he could not produce any proof, for no recordis left with the Postal Department about its despatch. 4.The Standing Counsel has, however, strenuously opposed thepetitioner's assertion that he had sent the Ext.P6 through ordinarypost. But he submits that now the petitioner's request stands e-verified, though there was a delay on the petitioner's part. On that WP(C).No. 23384 of 2018 3 count, the Standing Counsel also submits that the respondents 4 and 5will consider the petitioner's claim for refund, after their rulingon the delay. 5.Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits,I dispose of the Writ Petition, holding that the respondents 4 and 5will consider the petitioner's claim for refund after adjudicatingthe delay, if any, in the petitioner's filing the return physically. The authorities may conclude the issue expeditiously,preferably, in two months. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) NO.I, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, ERNAKULAM DATED 20/10/2014 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 20/10/2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/11/2015 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO.2396/2015 IN WPC NO.21478/2015 DATED 04/11/2016COURT IN WA NO.2396/2015 IN WPC NO.21478/2015 DATED 04/11/2016 EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.36/2016 DATED 25/10/2016 WP(C).No. 23384 of 2018 4 EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE FORM ITR-V FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2015-16 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD