K.RAVINDRAN NAIR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/11509/2013HC KeralaKLHC01054706201323 May 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order dated March 30, 2013 (Ext.P4) is appealable before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The court noted that the appellate authority has powers co-existent with the Assessing Authority in dealing with matters of valuation, which requires appreciation of evidence. The court also observed that the appellate order can subsequently be assailed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The pendency of the writ petition was to be taken into account for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax were stayed for two weeks to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. The writ petition was disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to invoke the statutory remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K. Ravindran Nair, proprietor of RDR Auditorium, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 30, 2013 (Ext.P4) passed by the Income Tax Officer. This assessment order was issued pursuant to a remand order (Ext.P2) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated May 31, 2011. The core dispute concerns the valuation of an auditorium constructed by the petitioner, which involves appreciation of evidence based on relevant inputs. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal before the ITAT (ITA No. 636/Coch/2010) and a stay petition (SP No. 83/Coch/2010), which led to the remand order. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous petition (MP No. 36/C/2011) before the ITAT on February 10, 2012.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 30, 2013 (Ext.P4), which was passed pursuant to a remand order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is amenable to challenge through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or if the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is challenging the assessment order. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments for filing the writ petition, but it implies a challenge to the assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the court's observation suggests that the assessment order is appealable, implying the revenue would likely argue for the exhaustion of statutory remedies.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

WP(C).No. 11509 of 2013

TC NO.16/49

ITA NO.636/COCH/2010

SP NO.83/COCH/2010

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2013/2ND JYAISHTA 1935 WP(C).No. 11509 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- K.RAVINDRAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS PROPRIETOR, RDR AUDITORIUM, TC NO.16/494-12 EDAPPAZHANJI JN., VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11509 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.30.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.5.2011 IN ITA NO.636/COCH/2010 AND SP NO.83/COCH/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.2.2012 IN MP NO.36/C/2011 OF ITAT, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 30.3.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14.11.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTE. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.12.2012 WRITTEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DVO, CHENNAI. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.11509 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2013

J U D G M E N T The issue boils down to the valuation of an auditorium constructed by the petitioner. The same involves appreciation of evidence on the basis of the relevant inputs. Ext.P4 order of assessment in the instant case has therefore to be impugned in appeal. The Appellate Authority has powers co-existent with the Assessing Authority in dealing with such matters.

I also find that Ext.P4 order of assessment was passed pursuant to Ext.P2 order of remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P4 order is appealable before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The appellate order can again be assailed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The pendency of the writ petition may be taken note of in the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeal. The coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax shall be put on hold for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy as above.

W.P.(C) No.11509 of 2013 2 The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy as above. V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →