Case Law Details
Veni Karunakumari Reghuvaran Vs PCIT (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified. Accordingly, order set aside and application for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are to be restored back.
Facts- This writ petition has been filed challenging orders issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, principally on the ground that the application for extension of time/condonation of delay in filing revised returns for the assessment tier 2021-2022 [in respect of the deceased parents of the petitioner] has been rejected after examining the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that though orders do not reflect the same, it is clear from notices issued prior to the consideration of the applications that the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner as the representative assessee of her deceased parents was considered while deciding the application under section 119(2)(b).
Conclusion- Held that there is some merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner had been considered while deciding whether the application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns for the assessment year 2021-2022 should be granted or not. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are to be restored for the consideration of the Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, who shall consider as to whether there was sufficient reason for condonation of delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P11 and P12 orders issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, principally on the ground that the application for extension of time/condonation of delay in filing revised returns for the assessment tier 2021-2022 [in respect of the deceased parents of the petitioner] has been rejected after examining the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that though Exts.P11 and P12 do not reflect the same, it is clear from Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued prior to the consideration of the applications that the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner as the representative assessee of her deceased parents was considered while deciding the application under section 119(2)(b).
2. It is contented that in application under section 119(2)(b) must be considered only on the ground as to whether there was genuine hardship and whether there is a good ground for extension of time/condonation of delay and not on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner.
3. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that the reading of the impugned orders indicate that the applications had been rejected after taking into consideration, the instructions issued by the Central Board on 09.06.2015.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that there is some merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner had been considered while deciding whether the application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns for the assessment year 2021-2022 should be granted or not. The fact that the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner was considered is clear from a reading of Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued by the Income Tax Officer prior to the consideration of the matter by the Principal Commissioner. Further Paragraph 8 of the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents reads thus:
“8. It is respectfully submitted that the petition for condonation of delay in filing the revised return was rejected only on merits of the case. The Apex Court decision dated 16.07.2009 referred to by the petitioner in her reply dated 15.06.2023 cannot be relied upon as Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act were inserted with effect from 01.04.2010. The provisions contained in Section 56(2) (viii) and Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act are unambiguous that the interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation is to be treated as Income under the head ‘Other Sources’ and not under the head Capital Gains.”
I am, therefore of the view that, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are to be restored for the consideration of the Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, who shall consider as to whether there was sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Accordingly Exts.P11 and P12 are quashed. The applications leading to the issue of Exts.P11 and P12 are restored to file.
The principal commissioner shall not consider the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner and shall only consider whether genuine reasons are shown for condonation of delay. The principal commissioner shall pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Author Bio
