T.P.BABU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/16997/2015HC KeralaKLHC01062837201508 June 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that if there is a delay in filing the appeal, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the Appellate Authority with the reasons for condonation of delay. The Court stated that if such an application for condonation of delay is filed before the Appellate Authority, the authority will consider it in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal without considering the delay. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, T.P. Babu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P10) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aluva. The petitioner intended to file an appeal against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1. However, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to admit the appeal without considering any delay. The petitioner had received an award (Ext.P1) on May 20, 2008, filed an income tax return on July 31, 2009, and received various notices and orders from the Income Tax Officer between February 2011 and August 2011, culminating in the assessment order dated August 30, 2011.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Appellate Authority to admit an appeal without considering any delay, when the petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order. The petitioner's contention is that the Appellate Authority should be directed to admit the appeal if filed, within a time frame fixed by the Court, without considering the delay. The revenue's contention, as implied by the Court's response, is that the petitioner must satisfy the Appellate Authority regarding the reasons for condonation of delay if an appeal is filed with a delay. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the revenue beyond this implication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 16997 of 2015 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- T.P.BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, THALASSERY HOUSE, PONJASSERY, VENGOLA P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 547. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SMT. RANI.K.P. RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALUVA - 683 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 O/O.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-682 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp

WP(C).No. 16997 of 2015 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.160/08 DATED 20.05.2008 ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAY, PERUMBAVOOR TO THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN NO.81876460310709 DATED 31.07.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AQQPB3468B DATED 11.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 24.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AQQPB3468B DATED 14.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AQQPB3468B/W-1/ALUVA DATED 04.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.07.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AQQPB3468B/W-1/ALUVA DATED 19.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.08.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AQQPB3468B DATED 30.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ******************************************************* W.P.(C) No.16997 of 2015 ******************************************************* Dated this the 8th day of June, 2015 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P10 assessment order, wants to file an appeal. The petitioner seeks for the following relief: To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to admit the appeal if filed by the petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court, without considering the delay. I am of the view that, if there is a delay, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Appellate Authority, the reason for condonation of delay. If such an application is filed before the appellate authority, certainly, the Appellate Authority will consider the same in accordance with law. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to issue a writ of mandamus to the Authority. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →