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
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
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
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
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
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
