Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16788 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 16246 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWAM
KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM-676 553, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MRS. SUJATHA.
BY ADVS.
P.RAGHUNATHAN
PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
P.B.NO.2, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE,
ELECTRONIC CITY P.O., BANGALORE 560500.
2 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001.
BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 16246/21
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the Centralised
Processing Centre (CPC) of the Income Tax
Department, rejecting their application for
rectification, namely Ext.P6, for the reason that
the said Authority has no jurisdiction in the
matter, because the file has been transferred to
the concerned Assessing Officer.
2. The petitioner, however, says that Ext.P7
records a prima facie view that the order sought
to be rectified is without error and therefore,
prays that the same be set aside to that extent;
with liberty being granted to them to approach the
Assessing Authority appropriately with a fresh
rectification application, under the provisions of
Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the WPC 16246/21
petitioner - Sri.Premjit Nagendran and
Sri.Christopher Abraham - learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
4. Sri.Christopher Abraham conceded that
Ext.P7 order has been issued only because the CPC
did not have jurisdiction, once the files had been
transferred to the Assessing Authority. He added
that the record of the prima facie view made
therein is only on account of the fact that a
standard format has been used; and added that if
the petitioner files a proper rectification
application before their Assessing Authority, the
same can be considered in terms of law.
5. I notice from the pleadings that the
petitioner has, in fact, already approached the
Assessing Authority through Ext.P8 rectification
application on 16.12.2020. I am, therefore, of the
view that the said Authority must be now directed
to consider it on its merits and issue appropriate
orders without any further delay. WPC 16246/21
In the afore circumstances, recording the
afore submissions of Sri.Christopher Abraham, I
order this writ petition, directing the 2nd
respondent-Income Tax Officer to take up Ext.P8
rectification application of the petitioner and to
dispose it of, after affording them an opportunity
of being heard and after following due procedure,
thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 16246/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16246/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED
14.2.1983 OF COM. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN RE: REGN. U/S 10(23C)(V).
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF EXEMPTION U/S 12A DATED 1.5.2009 ISSUED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI.
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR 2018.19(Y.E 31.3.2018) IN ITR-7.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10BB DATED 27.10.2018.
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF INTIMATION DATED 10.11.2019 U/S 143(1)
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER ON EXT.P6 DATED 12.12.2019.
Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED IN TERMS OF EXT.-7 DATED 16.12.20.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!