M/S. Elias & Co.basin Road, Ernakulam, Kochi v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishnaparvathy Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 7 DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WA NO. 1009 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 9298/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALAAPPELLANT/S: M/S. ELIAS & CO.BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHAKKIATH JOSEPH ANTONY, PIN - 682031BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNAPARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT/S:1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD1(1), NON-CORPORATE, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 6820182NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTREDELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SC: ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,&MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ............................................................ W.A. No.1009 of 2023........................................................... Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2023 JUDGMENT Mohammed Nias.C.P. J. The Appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitionchallenging the appellate order passed by the 2ndrespondent, has filed this Writ Appeal. The appellant contended that, by Ext.P1 order, the 1strespondent had finalised the assessment for the year 2013-2014, againstwhich Ext.P2 appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority,challenging the additions made to the taxable income. An amount of Rs.7lakhs was also paid towards the disputed tax during the pendency of theappeal. Later, the appeal was transferred to the 2ndrespondent, whoissued Ext.P3 notice, in response to which the appellant uploaded thenecessary details by Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 notice dated 12.01.2023, theappellant was directed to upload the details for the final hearing, and sincethe appellant required more time in view of the long pendency of the matter,by Ext.P6 letter dated 19.01.2023, three weeks' time was sought for. However, by Ext.P7 order, the 2ndrespondent rejected the appeal withoutconsidering the prayer made in Ext.P6. This was challenged before thelearned Single Judge, who held that the writ petitioner has an alternativeremedy of preferring an appeal against the order impugned and thus closed the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer anappeal against the appellate order. 2.Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that therejection of Ext.P6 by Ext.P7 has resulted in losing an opportunity to arguethe first appeal on merits. It is also the submission that Ext.P6 request wasmade on 19.01.2023, and declining the request, orders were passed on30.01.2023 by Ext.P7. 3.After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learnedcounsel for the respondent, we do not think any interference is warrantedwith the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has aneffective and alternative remedy by way of an appeal, and no circumstancewarrants this Court to entertain a Writ Appeal against the order thatrelegated him to the alternative remedy. We do not find any error in thediscretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in theappeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE APPENDIX OF WA 1009/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURESAnnexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCED BYTHE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NILAnnexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF FACELESS APPEAL SCHEME, 2020 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OFFINANCE, NEW DELHI DTD. 25-09-2020