Kerala High Court
Veni Karunakumari Reghuvaran D/O Late ... vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 1 November, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:81186
WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VENI KARUNAKUMARI REGHUVARAN D/O LATE
REGHUVARAN NAIR VELAYUDHAN PILLAI,
AGED 54 YEARS
HOUSE NO.A-9, T.C.55/291-2, AMRITHA NAHAR,
KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695018
BY ADVS.
MARTHANDA VARMA PANDALAI.K
S.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
AYAKAR BHAVAN,1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR, P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPUARAM, PIN - 695003
2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HEAD QUARTERS,
TRIVANDRUM,
AYAKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADVS.
G.KEERTHIVAS
P.G.JAYASHANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81186
WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
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 2024:KER:81186 WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024 3 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 2024:KER:81186 WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024 4 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."
2024:KER:81186 WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024 5 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.
GOPINATH P. JUDGE GBG 2024:KER:81186 WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29520/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURN OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURN OF DECEASED MOTHER Exhibit P3 PETITION DATED 22-12-2022 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P4 PETITION DATED 22-12-2022 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER Exhibit P5 DETAILED REPLY DATED 11-01-2023 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER Exhibit P6 DETAILED REPLY DATED 16-01-2023 IN RESPECT DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P7 LETTER DATED 12-6-2023 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P8 LETTER DATED 12-6-2023 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER Exhibit P9 REPLY DATED 15-6-2023 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P10 REPLY DATED 15-6-2023 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER Exhibit P11 ORDER DATED 16-6-2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P12 ORDER DATED 16-6-2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER 2024:KER:81186 WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2024 7 Exhibit P13 LETTER DATED 21-06-2023 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED FATHER Exhibit P14 LETTER DATED 21-06-2023 IN RESPECT OF DECEASED MOTHER ExhibitP15 CIRCULAR NO.19/2019 DATED 14-08-2019 BY CBDT