Case Law Details
Punnorath Meethal Sankaran Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court, in the case of Punnorath Meethal Sankaran vs Income Tax Officer (ITO), addressed a critical jurisdictional issue regarding the acceptance or rejection of applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The court’s attention was drawn to the rejection of an application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018, as outlined in Ext.P10.
Detailed Analysis: The heart of the matter lies in Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, read with Circular No. 9/2015 dated 9.06.2015. According to these provisions, the authority vested with the powers to accept or reject applications for condonation of delay in filing returns where the claim does not exceed Ten Lakhs for any assessment year is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
In the present case, the claim for refund exceeds Ten Lakhs, thus placing it outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT). Despite this, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi, passed the order in Ext.P10, rendering the decision without jurisdiction.
Recognizing this jurisdictional flaw, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order in Ext.P10. The matter was remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner, the 4th respondent, with a directive to consider and pass an order on the petitioner’s application (Ext.P8) expeditiously, within a period of two months.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to jurisdictional limits defined by the Income Tax Act and associated circulars. It serves as a reminder that applications falling outside the prescribed monetary limits must be handled by the appropriate authority to ensure a fair and lawful process.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the judgment in Punnorath Meethal Sankaran vs ITO highlights the significance of jurisdictional adherence in income tax matters. The Kerala High Court’s intervention rectifies the jurisdictional error in the Chief Commissioner’s order, emphasizing the need for decisions within the defined legal framework. The remittance of the matter for expedited reconsideration ensures a just resolution in accordance with the correct jurisdictional authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P10 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petition under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) for condoning the delay in filing the return of the petitioner’s income for the assessment year 2017-2018.
2. Under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act r/w circular No.9/2015 dated 9.06.2015, the jurisdiction to consider the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in which the claim is not more than Ten Lakhs for any one assessment year, the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income tax shall be vested with the powers of acceptance / rejection of such applications / claims.
3. In the present case, the claim of refund is more than Ten Lakhs, and therefore, the jurisdiction to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, is not vested with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi has passed the order in Ext.P10, and thus, the order passed is without jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order in Ext.P10 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Chief Commissioner, the 4th respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P8 application of the petitioner, expeditiously, within a period of two months.
