Wa/1536/2010 Of Sri.p.m.sathyan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1536 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3589/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SRI.P.M.SATHYAN, PROP.AISWARYA JEWEL CRAFTS, CHERPU P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-II O/O.THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-II, COCHIN. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------- W.A No.1536 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ petition was filed for a direction to releasethe stock of gold seized from the appellant by the IncomeTax Department. Learned Single Judge directedadjudication with reference to seizure made. Thecontention of the appellant is that goods seized are stock-in trade and therefore seizure itself is illegal. 2.However, learned standing counsel submitted that seizure is with respect to unaccounted goods andtherefore it cannot be treated as stock-in-trade. The caseof the appellant is that a sworn statement was made at thetime of search, wherein, appellant claimed ownership ofthe seized goods. There is no need for us to consider thecontroversy raised in this matter because assessment hasto be completed. at theearliest and the adjudication inour view referred to by the learned Single Judge can onlybe treated as regular assessment or assessment under W.A No.1536 of 2010 Section 153 (A) of the Income Tax Act, whichever is theproposal, i.e. tenable. Appellant is given full freedom toraise all objections including his challenge against seizurebefore the Assessing Officer. Since learned standingcounsel submitted that return for the year 2010-2011 is notfiled and the same is also relevant because seizure happensto be in the previous year relevant for the said assessmentyear, it is for the appellant to file return immediately forthe assessment year 2010-2011. We therefore dispose of the writ appeal by directing the concerned authority to complete the assessment orissue any other order that is permissible under the Actwithin a period of two months from the date on whichappellant files return for 2010-2011. Appellant should begiven an opportunity to raise objections against allproposals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE ma K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE