Case Law Details
Dr. N Uthaman Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Dr. N Uthaman vs. ITO, the Kerala High Court recently addressed a long-pending issue involving the delay in considering a rectification request. The petitioner had sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing the non-consideration of their rectification application for a period of four years. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, the court’s directives, and the implications of this decision.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: Dr. N Uthaman filed their income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 on 17th July 2018. However, the petitioner received an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act from the 2nd respondent on 20th November 2018. In response, they submitted a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act on 15th January 2019.
2. Rectification Application Delay: The key issue in this case was the significant delay in processing the rectification application. Despite submitting the request in early 2019, no decision had been reached, prompting the petitioner to approach the Kerala High Court for relief.
3. Court’s Response: During the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted the delay in processing the rectification application, emphasizing that it had been pending for four years. In response, the court directed the petitioner to physically file the rectification application before the 1st respondent within ten days. The court further instructed that the rectification application should be considered, and an order issued expeditiously.
4. Abeyance of Proceedings: The court’s decision also stipulated that all proceedings related to the demand notice issued earlier (Exhibit P-3) should be kept in abeyance until the rectification application is decided by the 1st respondent.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s directive in the case of Dr. N Uthaman vs. ITO underscores the importance of timely consideration of rectification requests by tax authorities. The court’s decision not only addresses the delay but also provides a path for the petitioner to expedite the processing of their application. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of efficient administrative processes in the context of tax assessments and rectifications, ensuring that taxpayers receive timely resolutions to their grievances.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs;
A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 rectification request dated 15.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent for AY 2018-19 within a time frame, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
B. To issue a writ of mandamus or nay other writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from enforcing demand and other proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 Intimation order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 20.11.2018 for AY 2018-19.
AND
C. Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner had filed return of his income on 17.07.2018 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner received intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act by the 2nd respondent on 20.11.2018. After receipt of the said communication, the petitioner has filed rectification application dated 15.01.2019 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The said rectification application was e-filed in the Income Tax Portal. The petitioner has placed on record the e-filing acknowledgment as Exhibit P-5.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said rectification application was filed on 15.01.2019, but till date no decision has been taken.
4. Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the assessment order as well as the rectification applications are considered at the Centralised Processing Centre situated at Bangalore. The said Centre does not have record of the said rectification application and the website of the Centre does not show any such pending rectification application on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that if the petitioner files the rectification application within a period of ten days from today before the 1st respondent physically, his application shall be considered irrespective of the limitation period which has already expired. This submission has been made by Mr. Christopher Abraham, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the basis of the instructions received from the respondents.
5. Considering the instruction on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is granted ten days time from today to file rectification application before the 1st respondent physically and the said rectification application shall be considered and order in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1st respondent expeditiously. Till the rectification application is decided by the 1 st respondent, all proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P-3 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance.
With the above directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
