The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a writ petition challenging the prospective nature of amended Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and seeking quashing of an assessment order. Relying on S.A. Wahab, the court rejected the petitioner's claims.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 101 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
MARUTHI BABU RAO JADAV AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.BABURAO SAMBAJI JADAV DHANALAKSMI NIVAS, NEAR ARADHANA QUARTERS, PRINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
RESPONDENT/S:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN (NORTH BLOCK), KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 101 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
i. Declare that amended section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act to be prospective in nature and the Taxation Second Amendment Act 2016 has no bearing on events that occurred before 15.12.2016, which is not connected with demonetization.
ii. To call for the records leading to Ext.P3, P4 and P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ or direction setting aside Ext.P2 assessment order in so far as it levies tax of 60% +25% as Surcharge, on the declared income.
iii. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P3, P4 and P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ or direction setting aside Ext.P3, P4 and P5.
S.A. Wahab1 on an identical issue, I apply its ratio to this case too. As a result, I dismiss this writ petition.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
1 1990 182 ITR 464 Ker
WP(C).No. 101 of 2019
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT ALONG WITH INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE AY 2017-18. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH 271B OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH 271 AAC OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE IT ACT DATED 6/12/2018. |
| EXHIBIT P6 sd |
TRUE COPY OF THE TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT ACT 2016. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the amended Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature.
Whether the Taxation Second Amendment Act 2016 has retrospective effect on events prior to 15.12.2016.
Whether the assessment order and notices should be set aside as they levy tax with surcharge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. WahabRelied on¶21
1990 182 ITR 464 Ker
6 provisions across 1 enactments
MARUTHI BABU RAO JADAV
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, KOZHIKODE
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
