Wp(C)/33211/2009 Of P.n.ponnappan v. The Income Tax Officer,Ward 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33211 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.N.PONNAPPAN, PUTHANPURAYIL, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. P.PADMANABHAN, KADAVATH HOUSE, CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.V.ANTONY, PULIEKAL HOUSE, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (EX-EMPLOYEES OF STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA). BY ADVS. SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI, SMT.A.SREEKALA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TRISSUR. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MATTANCHERY, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRISSUR. W.P.(C). NO.33211/2009-V: 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM. 7. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. 8. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R8 BY MR.JOSE JOSEPH, (S.C, INCOME TAX). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 17[th] day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1.Petitioners are employees of Steel Authority ofIndia (SAIL), who have opted for voluntary retirement in theyear 1998-99 under the “Voluntary Retirement Scheme1998” formulated by the Company. Issue relates to theirentitlement for exemption from deduction on Income Tax,under Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act. In Ext.P2judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, appeals filed bycertain similarly situated employees were allowed, holdingthat the amount received under Voluntary RetirementScheme to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs is entitled for exemptionunder Section 10 (10 C). On the basis of the above saidjudgment the Company had recalculated tax liability of the W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 petitioners and others and informed that they are entitled for refund. When the authorities of the Income TaxDepartment had refused refund of the amounts to some ofthe employees who are similarly situated, they haveapproached this court seeking directions. In Ext.P4judgment directions this court directed the authorities ofthe Income Tax Department in Orissa to transfer the filesconcerned, to their counterparts in Kerala and to effectrefund of the amounts, after condoning delay in filing thereturns. It is submitted that in compliance of Ext.P4judgment those employees who are petitioners therein havealready got refund. But in the case of petitioners, the claimfor refund was rejected assigning the reason that, as percircular of the Board no claim for such refund can beentertained if it is filed after a period of six assessmentyears. Exts. P8 & P9 are the intimations received in thisregard, to petitioners 1 & 2. 2.In the statement filed on behalf of therespondents it is pointed that going by the provisions W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -3- contained in the Income Tax Act and the Circular of theCentral Board of Direct Taxes claims of the petitionerscould not be entertained since those claims are submittedafter lapse of six assessment years from the relevant year ofpayment of the amounts. 2.In the statement filed on behalf of therespondents it is pointed that going by the provisions W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -3- contained in the Income Tax Act and the Circular of theCentral Board of Direct Taxes claims of the petitionerscould not be entertained since those claims are submittedafter lapse of six assessment years from the relevant year ofpayment of the amounts. 3.Going by the factual matrix of Ext.P2 judgment ofthe High Court of Calcutta and Ext.P4 judgment of thiscourt, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein arealso similarly placed as that of petitioners in those cases. Itis only just and proper in the interest of justice that similarrelief be granted also to the petitioners herein. Hence I amof the view that claim for refund made by the petitionersneed consideration, notwithstanding the alleged delaycaused in making such claims, if they are otherwise eligible. 4.Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directingrespondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass fresh orders on therefund applications submitted by the petitioners, in view ofthe observations made above. The needful shall be done inthis regard, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -4- period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/