IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1086 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 26/05/2011 IN WPC.17701/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONER -------------- M/S.KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED ARALUMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.D.S.SREEKUMARAN SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (I) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) FOR R SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1086 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant is a Kerala Government Company which until 1997-98 had a carried forward loss of around Rs.13 crores. During the year 1997-1998 the Company filed return on due date, which was processed and intimation was issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) on 12/06/1998. However the appellant noticed certain mistakes in the original return and therefore filed a revised return as provided under Section 143 (1B) of the Act, then prevailing in the statute. Even though revised return was filed which should have been processed under Section 143(1) again by the Officer or even a regular assessment should have been made after issuance of notice under sub Section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, the Assessing Officer did not act upon the revised return. Therefore, the appellant filed a revision before the Commissioner with inordinate delay and the Commissioner dismissed the same. It W.A.No.1086/2011 2 was against this order of the Commissioner issued under Section 264 of the Act the appellant filed WP(C), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that there was no order that could be revised by the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act. 2. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contented that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) itself is an order which could be revised by the Commissioner on a petition filed under Section 264 of the Act. Alternatively learned counsel contended that since the Assessing Officer has not acted upon the revised return filed under Section 143 (1B) on 30/03/1999 which was within the time prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act , the appellant is entitled to at least a mandamus to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return in accordance with law. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the findings of the learned Single Judge wherein the revised return filed on 31/12/1999 was clearly stated as beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act. After hearing both sides we feel the W.A.No.1086/2011 3 appellant is entitled to the second relief prayed for that is a mandamus to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return filed under Section 143(1B) of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel rightly pointed out that revised return filed on 30/03/1999 only could be considered and the delayed return filed on 31/12/1999 should be ignored. We therefore allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the WP(C) by directing the Assessing Officer to process the revised return filed under Section 143(1B) in accordance with Sections 143(1) & 143(1A) of the Act making all adjustments and allowances permissible under the Act. We also make it clear that if assessment is modified and fresh orders are issued, consequential benefit should be granted to the appellant in later years also by rectifying orders issued for later years. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg