2007 Supreme(Kar) 78

Karnataka High Court
Judges : D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR
A.BALAKRISHNAN - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER - Respondent
Writ Petition 16447 Of 2006
Decided On : 02/01/2007
Advocates Appeared :
Aravind Kumar, G.SUKUMAR, M.V.SESHACHALA

Headnote:Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section - 10(10C) - Terminal benefits - Exemption of - Assessee filing return beyond time limit prescribed - Refusal to process - Not proper. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The respondents cannot declaine to process the return as the exemption of payment as terminal benefit and exceeding a sum of Rs 5.00 lakh in terms of Section 10(10C) of the Act is also one ona clim by the assessee as an amount received which qualifies for this exemption. This again can be done only in a return filed by the assessee and not elsewhere. it may be noticed that if the assessee is not entitled for this benefit of Section 10(10C), then the income becomes taxable and it can be brought to tax by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 147 also. Even without looking into the return, it will not be possible for the assessing officer to concluse that as there is no taxable income, no need to process the return etc. Therefore, in either view of the matter, it will be necessary for the assessing officer to process the return and to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not to justify the inaction.

       Cases Referred: 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB); 79 ITR 278; 111 ITR 161.

       Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 192 (1B) - Applicability - Belated filing of return - Processing of - Provision not applicable. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: Reference to provisions of Section 192(1B) of the Act and on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents is also not tenanble, as it is only such assessee who is seeking for an extention of the time stipulation or a conddonation of delay in complince, may invoke the provisions of Section 119(2)(a) of the Act. if no time stipulatin was in the first instance applicable to the return that is filed by the petioner, the provisions Section 119(2)(b) are also not needed at all.

       Cases Referred: 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB); 79 ITR 278; 111 ITR 161.

       Income tax Act, 1961 - Section - 139 (1) (4) - Delay in filing return in Form 2D - Refusal to process - Return filed beyond time prescribed - Is there any embargo to process? No. [D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,J]: The filing of the returns under the Income Tax Act. 1961 is now governed by the provisions of Section 139 of the said Act. A perusal of the provisions of Section 139 does not indicate that the authorities are barred from processing return filed under the Act just because it is not filed within the time stipulated either under section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act. While it may not be open to the income tax department to bring to tax any income beyond the period permitted in terms of Section 147 of the Act if within that time either a return is filed whether within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) or 139(4) or otherwise, it can be looked into and there is no embargo as such.

       Cases Referred: 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB); 79 ITR 278; 111 ITR 161

       Income tax Act, 1961 - Section 119 (2) (b) - Scope of - Failure to invoke provisions of, by assessee - Does not come in the way of authorities to process return filed by assessee - Provision would not relieve authorities from the obligation of examining a return - Nor it can be used as an excuse for inaction on part of authorities.

       Cases Referred: 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB); 79 ITR 278; 111 ITR 161.

       Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 153 - Time limit prescribed under - Assessee having nil taxable income - Hence, he has no obligation to file return - Time limit would not apply - Return filed beyond time prescribed - Authorities cannot refuse to process. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: To say that the income tax authorities are disabled from scrutinizing the return filed by the petitioner, in view of the time stipulation in terms of Section 153 for processing such return may not be correctly apply at all. On the other hand, the employer having deducted certain amount from the petitioner as deduction at source on the payment of salary/ retrial benefits and having remitted it to the account of the income tax department and this deduction being in terms of the provisions of the Act and if the assessee is not otherwise enabled to claim refund of this amount under any other statutory provisions and if he is not actually liable to pay the kind of income tax deducted at source nor the learned counsel for respondent having pointed out to any enabling statutory provisions, the only other way the petitioner can seek from refund of the amount is by filing a return of his income and as a result of the assessment if it is found the tax liability of the petitioner is nil, the assessing officer may take note of the amount already deducted from out of the amount paid to the petitioner by his employer and remitted to the income tax department and direct refund of that amount to the assessee as part of the assessment order. For not performing this exercise, the respondents cannot bind the time stipulation indicated in Section 139 of the Act as a defence.

       Cases Referred: 2005 (59) KLJ 609 (HC) (DB); 79 ITR 278; 111 ITR 161.