P.N.Ponnappan vs The Income Tax Officer

[Cites 3, Cited by 0] Kerala High Court P.N.Ponnappan vs The Income Tax Officer on 17 December, 2009 Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33211 of 2009(V) 1. P.N.PONNAPPAN, ... Petitioner 2. P.PADMANABHAN, 3. P.V.ANTONY, Vs 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ... Respondent 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 7. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 8. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, For Petitioner :SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI For Respondent :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :17/12/2009 O R D E R C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioners are employees of Steel Authority of India (SAIL), who have opted for voluntary retirement in the year 1998-99 under the "Voluntary Retirement Scheme 1998" formulated by the Company. Issue relates to their entitlement for exemption from deduction on Income Tax, under Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act. In Ext.P2 judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, appeals filed by certain similarly situated employees were allowed, holding that the amount received under Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs is entitled for exemption under Section 10 (10 C). On the basis of the above said judgment the Company had recalculated tax liability of the W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -2- petitioners and others and informed that they are entitled for refund. When the authorities of the Income Tax Department had refused refund of the amounts to some of the employees who are similarly situated, they have approached this court seeking directions. In Ext.P4 judgment directions this court directed the authorities of the Income Tax Department in Orissa to transfer the files concerned, to their counterparts in Kerala and to effect refund of the amounts, after condoning delay in filing the returns. It is submitted that in compliance of Ext.P4 judgment those employees who are petitioners therein have already got refund. But in the case of petitioners, the claim for refund was rejected assigning the reason that, as per circular of the Board no claim for such refund can be entertained if it is filed after a period of six assessment years. Exts. P8 & P9 are the intimations received in this regard, to petitioners 1 & 2. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents it is pointed that going by the provisions W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -3- contained in the Income Tax Act and the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes claims of the petitioners could not be entertained since those claims are submitted after lapse of six assessment years from the relevant year of payment of the amounts. 3. Going by the factual matrix of Ext.P2 judgment of the High Court of Calcutta and Ext.P4 judgment of this court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein are also similarly placed as that of petitioners in those cases. It is only just and proper in the interest of justice that similar relief be granted also to the petitioners herein. Hence I am of the view that claim for refund made by the petitioners need consideration, notwithstanding the alleged delay caused in making such claims, if they are otherwise eligible. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass fresh orders on the refund applications submitted by the petitioners, in view of the observations made above. The needful shall be done in this regard, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a W.P.(C)No. 33211 of 2009 -4- period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/