Wp(C)/23606/2023 Of S.umesh Shenoy v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -I, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945WP(C) NO. 23606 OF 2023 PETITIONER: S. UMESH SHENOY,RESIDING AT C. C. DOOR NO. 44/4394, SANKARASSERI ARCADE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018. AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. SREENIVAS SHENOY, BY ADVS. SRI. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT. R. RANJANIE SMT. LEKSHMI BABU B. S. RESPONDENTS: 1THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I, KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018.2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I, KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018.3THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON- CORP. WARD-I (I), KOCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018. BY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON28.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23606 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2023 JUDGMENT 1.Heard Ms. R. Ranjanie, learned Counsel for the petitioner andMr. Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department. Heard Ms. R. Ranjanie, learned Counsel for the petitioner and 2.The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order inExhibit P-6 dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Kochi rejecting petitioner’s application for condoningthe delay in filing the return of income for the assessment years2016-17. The ground on which the application has been rejected isthe time period prescribed for condoning the delay of six years as perthe Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. The petitioner has filedthe application on 31.05.2023 in respect of the assessment year 2016-17. The six years got over on 30.03.2023. However the applicationcame to be filed on 31.05.2023. In view thereof, in the impugnedorder it mentioned that since petitioner’s application is not inaccordance with the conditions specified in the CBDT Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, the application got rejected. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got no information in respect of his returns of incomesubmitted for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19resubmitted on request dated 26.02.2019 before the 3[rd] respondent,giving details of the refund for which the petitioner was entitled. Thepetitioner has also filed complaint on Public Grievance Portal of thePrime Minister’s Office. In response to the same, the petitioner wasawarded Rs. 2,32,549/- vide the intimation dated 13.10.2022 andthus, the petitioner’s grievance for refund pertaining to theassessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 got redressed. 4.What remains is the demand in respect of the assessment years2016-17 and the same was not addressed. It appears that thepetitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2016-17 on timebut, same were defective and defect was not cured by the petitionerwithin the time prescribed for filing the return. When the petitionercame to know that the petitioner’s returns were defective, he movedan application only on 31.05.2023 under Section 119 (2) (b) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay in rectifying thereturns for the assessment year 2016-17 and it was rejected by theimpugned order in Exhibit P-6. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the 4.What remains is the demand in respect of the assessment years2016-17 and the same was not addressed. It appears that thepetitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2016-17 on timebut, same were defective and defect was not cured by the petitionerwithin the time prescribed for filing the return. When the petitionercame to know that the petitioner’s returns were defective, he movedan application only on 31.05.2023 under Section 119 (2) (b) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay in rectifying thereturns for the assessment year 2016-17 and it was rejected by theimpugned order in Exhibit P-6. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had changed the Chartered Accountant, his phone numberand e-mail address were not updated on the Income Tax Portal and,therefore, the communication regarding the filing defective returnswas not received by the new Chartered Accountant and for thatreason the petitioner could not cure the defects in the returns for theassessment year 2016-17. The learned Counsel for the petitionerhowever, submits that the petitioner had raised the grievance inrespect of non-refund in 2019 itself and continues to raise hergrievance and even she raised the grievance in the Public GrievancePortal of the Prime Minister’s Office by filing complaint. Shetherefore submits that the application dated 31.05.2023 shouldtreated as in continuation of the letter dated 26.02.2019 in ExhibitP-1 and should not have been treated in isolation as filed only on31.05.2023. I find some substance in the submission of the learnedCounsel for the petitioner. 6.Mr. Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department opposed the said contention however, leftto the discretion of the Court to pass necessary orders. 7.Considering the fact that the petitioner had raised hisgrievances as early as on 26.02.2019 and also approached the PublicGrievance Portal of the Prime Minister’s Office and in pursuance towhich the petitioner was refunded Rs. 2,32,549 in respect of the twoassessment years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19, I am of the view that theapplication dated 31.05.2023 should not be treated in isolation as itdates back to 26.02.2019 when, the petitioner raised her grievancefor the first time. Thus, I view the application said to be on time.Hence the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner should bepermitted to rectify the returns of income for the assessment year2016-17. The petitioner should approach the Assessing Authoritywithin a period of ten days from today and rectify the errors/defectsin the returns. After the petitioner rectifies the errors, his claim forrefund should be processed in accordance with the law. Svn Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23606/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED26.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE3RD RESPONDENT26.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-2TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO6639258, CREATED ON 14.7.2022, GENERATEDONLINE6639258, CREATED ON 14.7.2022, GENERATEDONLINE EXHIBIT P-3THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED13.10.2022, COMMUNICATING REFUND, GENERATEDTHROUGH THE PG PORTAL ON LINE13.10.2022, COMMUNICATING REFUND, GENERATEDTHROUGH THE PG PORTAL ON LINE EXHIBIT P-4TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE DESCRIPTION DETAILSFOR REGISTRATION NO. CBODT / E/2022/ 32242,DATED 29.12.2022FOR REGISTRATION NO. CBODT / E/2022/ 32242,DATED 29.12.2022 EXHIBIT P-5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED31.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 1ST RESPONDENT31.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.06.2023 FROMTHE THE 1ST RESPONDENT , ALONG WITH INTIMATIONLETTER DATED 19.6.2023THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT , ALONG WITH INTIMATIONLETTER DATED 19.6.2023