Anie Joseph vs The Income Tax Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 7757 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 20865 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            ANIE JOSEPH,
            AGED 70 YEARS, PULAYATH HOUSE, MAMALA P.O,
            THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            HARISANKAR V. MENON
            MEERA V.MENON



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
            WARD 1(1), NON- CORPORATE, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS
            ROAD, KOCHI 682 018.

    2       THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II,
            PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 036.

    3       THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
            INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,
            NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001.

            ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.20865/2022                          -2-

                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of assessment in

respect of which the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application for rectification. It is the case of

the petitioner that the petitioner was found liable to tax under Ext.P3 in respect of

compensation received by the petitioner from out of compulsory acquisition of land. It is

submitted that in respect of the subsequent assessment year there is an order of the

appellate authority finding that the petitioner is exempted from payment of tax on capital

gains under Section 10 (37) of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the compensation

received under the very same acquisition has been factored while computing the tax

payable by the petitioner under Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that taking into account the

above facts and circumstances and especially considering the order of the appellate

authority for the subsequent year, Ext.P3 order is liable to be rectified. The petitioner

apprehends recovery proceedings pending consideration of the application for

rectification.

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ

petition can be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P4 application for rectification in respect of assessment year 2014-2015 after affording

an opportunity hearing to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of

receipt of a receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P4

application for rectification any demand pursuant to Ext.P3 order of assessment shall not

be enforced against the petitioner. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the matter.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20865/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR 2015-16.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.