AGARWAL YUVA MANDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(KER)-2017-1-146
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on January 10,2017

Agarwal Yuva Mandal Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 by which the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi -2 has issued an order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing a petition for revision filed by the assessee. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to hear him and pass appropriate orders.
(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Return was filed for the assessment year 2013-14 on 26/12/2013 showing the taxable income of Rs. 3,03,183/-. Petitioner received an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 16/11/2014 disallowing the claim of expenses for the reason that petitioner does not have registration under Section 12A of the Act. Petitioner was assessed to a liability of Rs. 2,85,190/-. Petitioner filed an objection to the proposed assessment. Thereafter no response was received. Petitioner later revised its return on 3/2/2015. Ext.P9 is the revised return. No action was taken by the revenue based on the revised return. Petitioner thereafter received a reminder dated 19/2/2015 for non payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,85,190/-. Petitioner sent a reply requesting to consider his revised return. Since there was no response, he filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act (Ext.P12). It was heard by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kochi on 23/3/2016 and by Ext.P1 order dated 28/3/2016, he declined to exercise the revisional authority.
(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that revenue has assessed the petitioner to tax without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The assessing officer has not responded to his claim to consider the clarifications on the income and expenditure. He is prejudiced on account of the failure of the 2nd respondent to entertain the revision petition under Section 264 and hence challenging the impugned order, this writ petition is filed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.