Rp/1142/2012 Of Ajith.k.mangatt v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 RP.No. 1142 of 2012 () IN WPC/20882/2012 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.20882/2012 DATED 10-09-2012 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:-------------------------------- AJITH.K.MANGATT,, AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 4/184, MANGATT HOUSE, OCHANTHURATU KOCHI - 8. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 002. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-2), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.1142/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1:TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT10.9.12 IN WP(C) No. 20882/12 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLECOURT. ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 9.9.2012IN THE APPEAL DATED 10.1.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 2NDRESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 19.11.12 IN WP(C) No. 27343/12 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //True Copy// Rp PA to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1142 OF 2012inW.P.(C) NO. 20882 OF 2012 =================== Dated this the 4[th] day of December, 2012 O R D E R WP(C) No. 20882/12 filed by the petitioner for anexpeditious disposal of Ext.P4 appeal filed against Ext.P3 order ofassessment was disposed of by judgment dated 10[th] ofSeptember, 2012. In that judgment, since Ext.P5 order passed bythe 1[st] respondent was in force, this Court directed that subject tothe petitioner complying with Ext.P5, Ext.P4 appeal will bedisposed of on an expeditious basis. In this review petition,petitioner now complains that the appellate authority is taking theview that only if Ext.P5 order is complied with, the appeal can bedisposed of. 2.The appeal filed by the petitioner is a statutory oneand irrespective of whether Ext.P5 order is complied with or not,petitioner is entitled to have the appeal dealt with in accordancewith law. On the other hand, non compliance of Ext.P5 order canonly result in recovery of the tax due under Ext.P3. Therefore, theappellate authority cannot insist on the petitioner complying with R.P.No.1142 OF 2012inW.P.(C) NO. 20882 OF 2012 Ext.P5 as a condition precedent for consideration of Ext.P4appeal. Therefore, this review petition is disposed of clarifying that itwill be open to the petitioner to seek disposal of the appeal and ifsuch a request is made, the appellate authority shall deal with theappeal in accordance with law. It is also clarified that, in themeantime, if there is non compliance of Ext.P5, it will be open tothe respondents to recover the tax due in terms of Ext.P3assessment order. Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE