Op/3225/2001 Of P.a.nooruddin v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

BP IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/4TH MAGHA, 1935 OP.No. 3225 of 2001 (H) ------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------- P.A.NOORUDDIN, C/O.FASHION SILK HOUSE, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT AHMED SAHIB MANZIL, BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, KOCHI-16. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, B-WARD, CIRCLE-II, TRICHUR R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3225 of 2001 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1:COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DT 10/10/1986 FOR THE YEAR 1982-83.DT 10/10/1986 FOR THE YEAR 1982-83. P2:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALES-II) ET DT 6/12/1998(APPEALES-II) ET DT 6/12/1998 P3:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R1 DT 5/10/1994. P4:COPY OF THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN ITA NO.144/COCH/89 DT 5/10/1994, FILED BY THE PETITIONER.NO.144/COCH/89 DT 5/10/1994, FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P5:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R1 IN MP NO. 21(COCHIN)/1998 DT 15/9/1998.DT 15/9/1998. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL. //TRUE COPY// BP P.A. TO JUDGE A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.3225 of 2001- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5 order passed by the Tribunal in a miscellaneous application filed forsetting aside the ex parte order. The Tribunal found thatseveral opportunities had been granted to the petitioner forappearance and since he failed to appear the matter wasdecided on merits. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would howeversubmit that though the case was posted finally on 3.10.1994there was no notice for appearance on the said date. But ona reference to paragraph 5 of the impugned order wouldshow that several opportunities were granted to thepetitioner by issuing notices and finally registered noticewith acknowledgment due had been issued which wasserved on the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I amof the view that there is justification on the part of the O.P. No.3225 of 2001 Tribunal to have rejected the application to set aside theex parte order. That apart the Tribunal has decided thematter on merits and it was always open for the petitionerto challenge the order of the Tribunal. Under thesecircumstances, I do not think that there is any violation ofnatural justice as contended by the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE shg/