THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI N.L.ANTONY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/671/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025432200929 October 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's applications for impleadment, setting aside abatement, and condoning delay. The Court found no bonafides in the Revenue's claim of learning of the assessee's death only in September 2018, given the appeal was filed in 2009 and the respondent died in 2009. The Court held that the Revenue ought to have been more vigilant in serving notice and impleading legal heirs when notice was not served. The Court also noted the negligible demand of Rs. 74,266 and stated that as per the litigation policy, no appeal would lie to the High Court. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 671 of 2009, was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur, against an order of the ITAT, Cochin Bench, dated April 20, 2005. The respondent is N.L. Antony. The demand raised in the original order was Rs. 74,266. The respondent assessee expired on July 13, 2009, shortly after the appeal was filed in 2009. The Revenue filed applications in 2018 to implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, set aside abatement, and condone a delay of 3210 days in filing these applications. The Revenue claimed they only came to know of the assessee's death on September 11, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's applications to implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, set aside abatement, and condone the delay of 3210 days are to be allowed, considering the significant delay and the Revenue's alleged lack of knowledge of the assessee's death. This issue turns on the principles of procedural fairness and diligence in pursuing litigation. The Revenue argued that they acted diligently upon learning of the death. The assessee's side did not record any arguments as the respondent was deceased and the applications were filed by the Revenue. 2. Whether the appeal itself should be dismissed, considering the negligible demand and the Revenue's litigation policy. This issue is a mixed question of law and fact, relating to the applicability of the Revenue's litigation policy to the present case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No. 671 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 933/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 20-04-2005 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRICHUR. BY SRI PKR MENON SR.COUNSEL FOR GOI TAXES SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: N.L.ANTONY M/S.N.A.LONAPPAN & SONS, HIGH ROAD, TRICHUR. OTHER PRESENT: THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA 671/2009 2 JUDGMENT/ORDER C.M.No.1/2018, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2018 and I.T.A. No. 671 of 2009 Vinod Chandran, J. This is an application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent and also to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the application for impleadment. The delay occurred is 3210 days. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that on merits the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue. 2. We notice that in the order passed at Annexure A, the demand raised is only Rs.74,266/-. The appeal was filed in the year 2009 and had been pending here all these years. The sole respondent is also said to have expired on 13.07.2009. There is absolutely no bonafides in the statement made in the Affidavit that the Department came to know of the death of the assessee only on 11.09.2018. The litigation is pending from 2009 and when notice was not served, the Department ought to have

ITA 671/2009 3 been more vigilant to see that the deceased respondent's legal heirs were impleaded. At this stage, after more than nine years, it is not proper that the Department be left to take out notice against the legal heirs and seek recovery of the amounts demanded with interest. We also notice that the demand raised is negligible and as per the litigation policy, no appeal will lie to the High Court as of now. We hence dismiss all the Applications filed and as a consquence, we dismiss the I.T.A. also. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON dkr JUDGE

ITA 671/2009 4 APPENDIX APPELLANT(S)' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 DATED 30.10.2000 ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA 29/D1/ TCR/CIT-V/00-01 DATED 04.06.2004 ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL

ITA 933/COCH/2004 DT. 20.04.2005

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →