• Kandivali West Mumbai 400067, India
  • 02246022657
  • facelesscompliance@gmail.com
December 11, 2023

Kerala High Court Sets Aside IT Order and Permits Return Rectification

Kerala High Court Sets Aside IT Order and Permits Return Rectification

S. Umesh Shenoy Vs PCIT (Kerala High Court)

Facts:

  • The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their application to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for the year 2016-17.
  • The application was rejected based on Circular No. 9/2015, which allows a maximum period of six years to condone such delays. The application was submitted on 31.05.2023, while the six-year period ended on 30.03.2023.
  • The petitioner had earlier filed returns for 2016-17 but didn’t rectify the defects within the stipulated time. They later applied on 31.05.2023 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of this delay, which got rejected.

Observations:

  • The petitioner claimed they didn’t receive communication about the defective returns because their contact details weren’t updated after changing their Chartered Accountant. They raised grievances in 2019 and even approached the Prime Minister’s Public Grievance Portal.
  • The Court noted that the petitioner had previously raised grievances on 26.02.2019 and was refunded for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Court found merit in the argument that the application from 31.05.2023 should be seen as a continuation of the earlier grievance from 26.02.2019.

Conclusion:

  • Despite opposition from the Income Tax Department, the Court exercised discretion in favor of the petitioner.
  • Considering the petitioner’s previous efforts to address the issue and the continuity of grievances since 2019, the Court set aside the impugned order.
  • The petitioner was allowed to rectify the errors in the returns for 2016-17 within ten days and instructed to approach the Assessing Authority for the same. Once rectified, their claim for a refund should be processed following the law.

In essence, the Court empathized with the petitioner’s situation, recognizing their efforts to address the issue since 2019. This led to the decision to grant the petitioner a chance to rectify the tax return errors for 2016-17, enabling them to claim the entitled refund after rectification.

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Leave a Reply

RSS
Follow by Email

Discover more from Faceless Compliance

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading