Wp(C)/30100/2016 Of Smt. Ambika Pankajakshan v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 30100 of 2016 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- SMT. AMBIKA PANKAJAKSHAN, W/O.LATE PANKAJAKSHAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHENGALOOR P.O., PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 312. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SRI.JACOB JOHN (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 [4], AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. WARD 2 [4], AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA [G] NO.1, PALAKKAD - 679 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ---------------------------- APPENDIX A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30100 of 2016 -----------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order passed by thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to condone delayunder Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Theimpugned order reads under : “The assessee had submitted a petition on 28.04.2014 forcondonation of delay in filing of return for the A.Y.2012-13. In the petition it is stated “I am enclosing herewith myincome tax return for the assessment year 2012-13. Asper my return a sum of Rs.72,490/- is due to me asincome tax refund. Even though the tax has beendeducted at source during the financial year 2011-12 theTDS certificate in respect of acquisition compensation wasreceived by me only on 10.04.2015. Hence I could not filethe return before the due date. I request you to be kindenough to condone the delay in filing the return and issuethe refund.” 2. I have carefully considered the petition of theassessee. The AO's report is devoid of detail. There is amention of a building in the order of acquisition whichvalued at Rs.71,000/-. Hence, how the rate ofRs.2,45,000/- was adjusted by assessee is not known.Further there is no detail of other income of that year bythe assessee. The assessee was an insurance agent. It isunbelievable that she was serving only on an income ofRs.717/-. Hence, the income of property given is not atrue. Hence, delay is not condoned.” 2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that theCommissioner ought to have considered the question as to whetherthe delay could be condoned, whereas, the correctness of thereturn, etc are matters to be considered by the assessing authority. 3. The facts involved in the case would show that thepetitioner was paid compensation under the Land Acquisition Act bydeducting tax at source. 72,422/- was the tax that was deducted₹and deposited before the Income Tax authorities. However, therewas delay on the part of the authorities in providing the TDScertificate, which resulted in the delay in submitting the return. 4. The question to be considered was whether there wassufficient reasons for condoning the delay. In Ext.P9 it was clearlystated that though the tax was deducted at source during financialyear 2011-12, the TDS certificate in respect of the acquisitioncompensation was received only on 10.04.2015. The application tocondone the delay was filed on 28.04.2015. It is apparent fromExt.P9 itself that the petitioner is not responsible for the delay andtherefore, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed asunder : 4. The question to be considered was whether there wassufficient reasons for condoning the delay. In Ext.P9 it was clearlystated that though the tax was deducted at source during financialyear 2011-12, the TDS certificate in respect of the acquisitioncompensation was received only on 10.04.2015. The application tocondone the delay was filed on 28.04.2015. It is apparent fromExt.P9 itself that the petitioner is not responsible for the delay andtherefore, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed asunder : Ext.P10 is set aside. The delay in filing the return ishereby condoned and claim for refund is entertained.The assessing officer shall consider the return filed by AV the petitioner, consider the claim for refund and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.