Disposed

Kerala Transport Development Finance v. the Union of India

Kerala HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/35383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting rectification petitions under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act due to pending appeal and missing documents. The Court set aside the rejection order, allowing the Commissioner to consider the rectification applications once the petitioner complies with the requirements regarding document uploads. No substantive adjudication on merits was conducted.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P9 (rejection order) and directed the Assessing Officer to consider rectification applications if document requirements are met.

Kerala Transport Development Finance Vs the Union of India — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 35383 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE LEVEL 8(6TH FLOOR)TRANS TOWERS VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.RAHUL.R.IRS

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), (PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)), 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶12

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC SC FOR INCOME TAX SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 35383 of 2018

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is a non-banking financial company. Challenging the order under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal, now pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Pending that appeal, the petitioner filed the Exts.P7 and P8 rectification petitions under Section 154 of the Act. But the assessing authority has rejected them through the Ext.P9. Assailing that order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶19

The petitioner's counsel contends hat the petitioner's request for rectification was rejected essentially on the ground that the appeal is still pending. He contends that the pendency does not affect the petitioner's right to rectification. According to him, under Section 154(IA), the bar operates only when the appeal has been heard and disposed of.

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, asserts that the rejection is not only because the appeal is pending, but also because the petitioner has not uploaded a few essential documents. And

¶21

WP(C).No. 35383 of 2018

¶22

¶23

according to him, some rectifications sought are debatable.

¶24

In reply, the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to upload whatever the documents the assessing authority has suggested. Once that is done, the authority may consider the petitioner's claim and give effect to the deductions that are permissible without further adjudication.

¶25

As seen from the instruction that, the assessing officer has communicated to the learned Standing Counsel as follows:

¶26

”xxxxxxxx

¶27

2. The primary contention of the deductor is that under various sections the demand is based on the figures as per audited financial statements and the total tax paid as per returns (quarterly statements) is deducted from the same to arrive at short fall. Rule 31A of Income Tax Rules 1962 stipulates that the deductor has to ensure that all TDS liable payments should be uploaded in 26Q statements, even when TDS is not deducted by raising flags A/B/C/Y/T/Z as pointed out in Notes to Form 26Q. Hence wherever the deductor had failed to upload a specific payment in the quarterly statement without proper TDS/specific reason for non deduction the same was considered as short deduction on the

¶28

WP(C).No. 35383 of 2018

¶29

¶30

part of the deductor. Therefore to reduce the demand, the deductor can file correction statements in TRACES by incorporating correct data and the reconciliation of the same with the data provided in 201 proceedings, which is to be submitted to the jurisdictional officer(TDS).

¶31

xxxxxxxxx”

¶32

Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the Writ Petition as follows:

¶33

If the petitioner complies with the requirements as set out above, the Assessing Officer will consider the petitioner's Exts.P7 and P8 rectification applications. Essentially for this purpose, I need to set aside Ext.P9, and I do so.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

WP(C).No. 35383 of 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TOT HE PETITIONER 2014-2015.
EXHIBIT P1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER 2015-2016
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 20.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DATED 31.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.11.2017 (ALONG WITH ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 18.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201 (IA) OF THE ACT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 19.06.2018 (ALONG WITH ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.07.2018 (ALONG WITH ANNEXURES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE NOTIFICATION PETITIONS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS- NIL
// TRUE COPY // P.A SD	. TO JUDGE

Kerala Transport Development Finance v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Transport Development Finance v. the Union of India

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

Aboobacker Vs Assistant Labour Officer

Synthite Industries Employees Union (Citu) Vs District Labour Officer (Enforcement) and Returning Officer

Ultra Modern Workshop, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Azhar Vs the District Labour Officer

Radhakrishnan Nair. S Vs Union of India

George K.M. Vs State of Kerala