V.K.SREENIVASAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/18324/2007HC KeralaKLHC01056993200714 June 2007Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's contention of non-receipt of the original appellate order was not acceptable, as he had admitted receipt by filing an earlier application with a delay condonation petition. The Court found that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioner's applications due to the inordinate delay, as the Tribunal has no power to entertain petitions filed many years after the order was passed. The Court noted that even though the petitioner did not appear, the Tribunal had considered the appeals on merits based on the grounds raised and records, and had partly allowed the appeals. The Court also observed that it was open to the petitioner to file an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A against the original appellate order (Ext. P6). Therefore, the writ petition was devoid of merit.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V.K. Sreenivasan, is challenging two orders (Exts. P10 and P12) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ernakulam Bench. These orders declined to interfere with the ITAT's earlier order (Ext. P6) dated June 9, 1997, which decided the petitioner's Income Tax Appeals for assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82. The petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal despite repeated notices, leading the Tribunal to decide the appeals ex-parte on merits after hearing the departmental representative. The petitioner claims he never received a copy of the order in appeal. He subsequently filed an application for rehearing, which was rejected by the Tribunal (Ext. P10). A further application to vacate Ext. P10, stating no delay in filing, was also rejected (Ext. P12) due to inordinate delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for rehearing of the appeals (Ext. P10) on the grounds of non-receipt of the original appellate order. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioner's subsequent application (Ext. P12) to vacate Ext. P10, citing inordinate delay. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the original appellate order (Ext. P6) was never served on him. He also contended that his subsequent applications were filed without delay and should have been considered. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the standing counsel for the ITAT, argued that the petitioner's applications were rejected due to inordinate delay. The revenue pointed out that the petitioner had admitted receipt of the original order by filing a delay condonation petition earlier. The revenue also noted that the Tribunal had considered the appeals on merits despite the petitioner's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2007 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 18324 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.SREENIVASAN, 'SANTHI NIVAS', 35/1425, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, 'KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SC SRI. GEORGE K GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 18324 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Exts. P10 and P12 orders issued by the Tribunal declining to interfere with Ext.P6 order in appeal issued by the Tribunal on 9.6.1997. It is seen that petitioner had filed two Income-tax Appeals for the years 1979-80 and 1981-82. Inspite of repeated notices, petitioner did not turn up before the Tribunal and therefore Tribunal heard the departmental representative, considered the case on merits and decided all the issues raised in appeal. It is seen from Ext.P6 that Tribunal has granted some relief to the petitioner also. Petitioner's case is that Tribunal never served copy of order in appeal on the petitioner. However, petitioner has filed application for rehearing the appeal again which was rejected by the Tribunal vide Ext.P10 order. Against Ext.P10 fresh petition was filed stating that there was no delay in filing application and therefore earlier order, namely, Ext.P10 should be vacated. This application was also rejected by Ext.P12 which is under challenge in this W.P.C.

2 2. I heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the department. It is seen from Ext.P12 that Tribunal has rejected application which is a rectification application because of the inordinate delay in filing it, that is more than four years from the date of passing of the order in appeal. I am unable to accept the petitioner's contention that order in appeal was never issued to the petitioner because petitioner himself admitted receipt of the same and filed application before the Tribunal with a delay condonation petition. Therefore Tribunal cannot be held to be wrong in rejecting the applications filed on account of inordinate delay because Tribunal has no powers to entertain petitions filed with several years of delay. Even so far as merits are concerned, I find Tribunal has inspite of non- appearance of petitioner considered the case on merits based on grounds raised in appeal and after perusing records partly allowed the appeals. It was open to the petitioner to file appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order in appeal issued by the Tribunal as Ext.P6. In the circumstances, W.P. is de void of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →