Remanded

Young Men Christian Association v. Centralized Processing Centre

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019WP(C)/14021/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of a rectification application on the ground that the CPC passed the §154 order. The Court held the observation was unsustainable and set aside the order, remitting the matter to the Commissioner for consideration under §264 within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 29.03.2019 and remitted the matter to the First Respondent for consideration under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act within eight weeks.

Young Men Christian Association Vs Centralized Processing Centre — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 14021 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

YOUNG MEN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION YMCA BUILDINGS, GPO, NEAR SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR. SHAJI JAMES.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SRI.R.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, POST BAG NO.2, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BANGALORE-560100.

¶11

2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), 2ND FLOOR, SAN JUAN TOWERS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN-682018.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) TRIVANDRUM-695003.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 14021/2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Heard Sri Anil D Nair, the petitioner's Counsel and Sri

¶20

Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶21

Income Tax Department.

¶22

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

¶23

“(a) Call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P8 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;

¶24

(b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of recovery of tax due under Exhibit P4.

¶25

¶26

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the

¶27

petitioner filed income tax return for the assessment year 201415 and it is admitted that the return filed is defective. The petitioner attended to the defects in the return and in the process of correcting the defects in the return, aggregation of

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 14021/2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

income was omitted from mentioning in the revised return. The petitioner since has not disclosed the aggregate income, the Assessing Officer raised a demand by referring to the incomplete return. The petitioner therefore was advised to file a request for rectification of the return before the first respondent. The request is made under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and request resulted in Ext.P8. The operative portion of Ext.P8 order reads thus:

¶31

“5. I have carefully examined the submission of the assessee. I have also gone through the report of the assessing officer. On verification of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that in this case the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) by the CPC and assessee's application for rectification u/s.154 was also rejected by CPC. The assessee has filed its petition u/s.264 since the date of filing appeal was over. As per Section 264 the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner can only revise any order passed by an authority subordinate to him. However, in this case the order u/s 154 was passed by the CPC and therefore it cannot

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 14021/2019

¶33

-4-

¶34

be interfered with. Therefore, the application for revision u/s 264 cannot be admitted.”

¶35

(emphasis added)

¶36

Hence the writ petition.

¶37

The first respondent in effect is of the view that the assessment orders since were passed by the Centralized Processing Centre the application now made by the petitioner/

¶38

assessee for revision under Section 264 cannot be maintained in law.

¶39

Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel, having regard to the scheme under Sections 143(1), 154 and 264 of the Income Tax Act fairly states that the observation or the view as held in Ext.P8 is unsustainable and the first respondent has jurisdiction and authority to do the needful on the request of petitioner in accordance with law. The respondents have received notices and have not filed counter affidavit. The

¶40

statement of Sri Christopher Abraham is placed on record and

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 14021/2019

¶42

-5-

¶43

accepted.

¶44

The order in Ext.P8 is accordingly set aside and matter remitted to first respondent for consideration and

¶45

disposal under Section 264 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

The writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

jjj

W.P.(C) No. 14021/2019

¶52

-6-

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 29.09.2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT NOTICE DATED 19.08.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN CURING THE DEFECTS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2016. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2016. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2019.

Young Men Christian Association v. Centralized Processing Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Young Men Christian Association v. Centralized Processing Centre

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

Biji M.J. Vs the State of Kerala

Madaparambil Varkey Varghese Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Shaji Jacob, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

G. Soman, Vs State of Kerala

N.O.George Vs the Chief Executive Officer

R.Poobalakrishnan, Vs the Intelligence Officer