Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.j v. V.i. Baby (2002) 254 Itr 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 20TH MAGHA 1928 WA. No. 53 of 2007() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.2824/1996 Dated 16/11/2006 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. CHERIAN P. VARGHESE (DIED), M/S. PREMIER RUBBERS & TRADES, KOTTAYAM. 2. JIJO CHERIAN VARGHESE, S/O. LATE CHERIAN P. VARGHESE, PREMIER HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. JOJO ALEXANDER VARGHESE, S/O. LATE CHERIAN P. VARGHESE, PREMIER HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT, SPECIAL RANGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATH MENON (SR.) SRI.GEORGE .K.GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2007, THE COURT ON 09/02/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No 53 of 2007------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated: 9th February 2007JUDGMENT Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment in O.P. No 2824 of1996. Writ petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quashExt. P7 order passed by the Commissioner on 12.10.1995 and also for adirection to the respondents not to take any recovery proceedings pursuantto Exts. P1 and P7. Learned single judge felt that sufficient facts are notavailable for this court to take a decision on the various contentions raisedby the petitioner and consequently remanded the matter to the assessingauthority for fresh decision in accordance with law. Reference was alsomade to the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. V.I.Baby (2002) 254 ITR 248). 2. When the matter came up for hearing, we heard learned counsel forthe appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Department.Detailed argument notes was submitted by the counsel for the appellant.Reference was also made to the decisions placed before the learned single judge. We have gone through the argument notes as well as the grounds inthe appeal. We endorse the view of the learned single judge that it isappropriate that the matter be remitted back to the assessing authority forfresh consideration since disputed questions of fact are involved. It isopen to the appellant to raise all their contentions before the assessingauthority and the assessing authority will take a decision in accordance withlaw. Since the assessment relates to the year 1989-1990 we are inclined todirect the assessing authority to pass fresh orders within three months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till that time coercive steps,if any, taken to recover the amount from the appellant shall be kept inabeyance. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J) Sd/-(M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE) 09/02/2007en/ [true copy]