Disposed

A.Muhammed Ashraf v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur

Kerala HC8 Dec 2011WP(C)/15926/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, set aside orders declining full credit for Tax Deducted at Source. The Court directed the petitioner to explain the delay in filing TDS certificates and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order if the explanation is reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Exts.P4 and P6; directed petitioner to explain delay in filing TDS certificate before respondent No.2.

A.Muhammed Ashraf Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 15926 of 2005(U) ----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

---------------

¶8

A.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, CIVIL ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR, CHALIL P.O., AROLI, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.E.V.MOLY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

---------------------

¶12

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAHANA AUDITORIUM, MELECHOWWA KANNUR-670 006.

¶13

2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(1), KANNUR.

¶14

BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 15926 of 2005

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2002-03 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER

¶21

P2: COPY OF INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF I.T. ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DT. 17.2.2003

¶22

P3: COPY OF APPLICATION DT. NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 143 (1)

¶23

P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.ACQPA 2788C DT.25.8.2003 RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER

¶24

P5: COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED ON 22.3.2004 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.C. NO.264-3/CIT/:KNR/2004-5 DT. 14.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶26

P7: COPY OF LETTER NO. ACQPA 2788C DT. 21.3.2005 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15926 of 2005

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2011.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is an assessee before the Income Tax Officer, Ward -I(1), Kannur and his Permanent Account Number is ACQPA2788C. For the year ended 31.03.2002, the assessee estimated his income at Rs.5,24,130/- for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2002 and claimed credit for TDS amount of Rs.1,56,655/- effected from the contract receipts. The Assessing Officer granted credit for Rs.43,674/- and declined to give credit for the balance Income Tax Deducted at Source, amounting to `1,12,981/- covered by TDS certificates stating that the amount relates to the current year 2001-02 and TDS deducted for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 alone will be given credit. The petitioner filed a rectification petition before the 2^nd respondent and the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer stating that there is no mistake. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent as per Ext.P6 order dated 14.02.2005 rejected the revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). It is the said order which is assailed in this petition.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get full credit for the Income Tax

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 15926/2005

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

deducted at source from the contract payments from out of which the income is declared and accepted in the assessment and the credit has to be given to the petitioner for the amount of Tax Deducted at Source on production of Certificates for TDS furnished under Section 203 of the Act.

¶41

I find that the claim of the petitioner is genuine. In my considered view, the Income Tax Officer should have considered the rectification petition filed under Section 154 of the Act in its right perspective and the Income Tax Officer should have given credit to the petitioner for the amount of Tax Deducted at Source on production of the TDS certificate.

¶42

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, I set aside Exts.P4 and P6 and direct the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on or before 16.01.2012 and explain to him under what circumstances he could not file the TDS certificate. If the petitioner files a reasonable explanation for the delay, respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order and accept the same.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.

¶44

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 15926/2005

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

B.P. RAY, J.

¶49

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 15926/2005

¶51

-:4:-

¶52

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶53

JUDGMENT

A.Muhammed Ashraf v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Muhammed Ashraf v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teresa.v.R. Vs the Ernakulam Dist. Co.Bank

Ernakulam District Co-Op. Bank Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Chaliyam-Beypore Matsyathozhilali Vs District Collector, Kozhikode

Prof.P.M.Thomas Vs Dist.Collector, Pathanamthitta

K.K.Rajeevan Vs v.K.Prasannan & Another