Wp(C)/8561/2019 Of Madhu Naduvath Mana v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940WP(C).No. 8561 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: MADHU NADUVATH MANA1-D, ROYAL NEST INFORT, CHINMAYA ROAD, CHINMAYA ROAD IN FORT, TRIPUNITHURA, KERALA-682301. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMARSRI.AJAY V.ANANDSMTG.MINI(1748)SRI.P.J.ANILKUMARSRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT/S: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER,NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI-682018. 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS RD, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner is a practicing lawyer andan assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2010-11, thepetitioner filed e-returns of 2010. In the return filed, the petitioner claimed adepreciation of Rs.1,11,338/-. However, inthe schedule, it was not mentioned.Thereafter, the petitioner filed revisedreturn within time ie; on 31.03.2011, thatwas rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner,filed rectification on 30.03.2012 and therectification was rejected on 12.04.2012. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionerfiled a revision. There was a long delay infiling the revision. It was for the reasonthat the petitioner was not aware of theorders passed on rectification. The order ofrectification, in fact, was uploaded in the website, but the hard copy was not communicated to the petitioner. The revisionwas also rejected, stating that there is noscope for entertaining the revision underSection 264 of the IT Act. The petitioner'sclaim for depreciation is reflected in thereturn. The only defect that was existed iswith regard to the non-inclusion in theschedule. 3. In such circumstance, I am of the viewthat revised return ought to have beenentertained. There is no scope for, in fact,filing a revision as rightly pointed out bythe Commissioner. Nevertheless, what assumesimportance is that in the factor of claimmade by the petitioner in regard todepreciation. Therefore, I am of the view that revised return shall be accepted andappropriate order shall be passed, takingnote of the claim for depreciation made by thepetitioner,afteraffordinganopportunity of being heard to the petitioner,within a period of two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment. Tillthe revised order is passed, any demand basedon the return shall not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of asabove. SB/21/03/2019 Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED E-RETURN EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2011(RELEVANT PAGES)(RELEVANT PAGES) EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFIED ITR EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX PORTAL SHOWINGTHE STATUS OF THE RECTIFICATIONTHE STATUS OF THE RECTIFICATION EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONETHE DELAY IN REVISION PETITIONTHE DELAY IN REVISION PETITION EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2018 RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE