COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOPME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITR/4/2012HC KeralaKLHC01024181201217 December 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court refused to answer the questions of law referred by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the assessee, who had compelled the reference and was therefore responsible for its prosecution, failed to pursue the matter diligently. Despite the reference being pending since 2012, the notice issued to the assessee was returned with an endorsement indicating they had "closed and left". In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to close the reference for non-prosecution, rather than adjudicating on the merits of the questions of law. The operative direction was to close the reference.

What were the facts?

This Indian Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 4 of 2012 was filed by the assessee, Cleetus Vincent, against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum. The reference arose from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 230/1991. The present reference was necessitated by an order of the High Court of Kerala dated 30.07.2007 passed under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which directed the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law. The assessee had initially filed an Original Petition (O.P.) No. 13717/1999 to compel this reference. The assessment year in question is 1980-81. The High Court issued a notice to the assessee, but it was returned with the endorsement "closed and left".

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should answer the questions of law referred by the Tribunal, given the assessee's failure to prosecute the reference. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, having initiated the process by filing an O.P. to compel the reference and subsequently seeking the reference, had a duty to diligently pursue the matter. The assessee's failure to appear or respond to the notice indicates a lack of interest in prosecuting the reference. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the questions of law. However, the context implies the revenue would be represented and would likely support the dismissal of the reference for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2)

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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITR.No. 4 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 230/1991 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPLICANT/S: CLEETUS VINCENT, C/O OCEANIC BUILDING, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL GOI TAXES SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ITR 4/2012 2 O R D E R Vinod Chandran, J. The above Reference has come up to us based on an order passed by the Tribunal in compliance with an order dated 30.07.2007 of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in O.P.No.13717/1999. We find that the O.P. compelling Reference itself was filed by the assessee, who is hence, the person who sought the Reference. A notice was issued from this Court, after the statement of the case by the Tribunal was placed before us. Though a notice was attempted to be served on the assessee, the same has been returned with the endorsement “closed and left”. The assessee having filed an O.P. compelling Reference and this Court having allowed the same directing Reference of certain questions by the Tribunal. It was the bounden duty of the assessee to pursue the matter diligently. The assessment year being 1980-81, the present Reference itself has been pending here from 2012 onwards. In such circumstances,

ITR 4/2012 3 we refuse to answer the questions of law and this Reference stands closed for non-prosecution. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →