Wa/1865/2012 Of Shri. Avara Haji v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/10TH KARTHIKA 1934 WA.No. 1865 of 2012 () ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.19609/2012 DATED ......... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- K.AVARA HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULIKKILIYAD.P.O., KOTTAPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM-682012. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER PALAKKAD-678 001. PALAKKAD-678 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.1865 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st November, 2012 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filedseeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to set aside Ext.P8 notice dated 07.6.2012. Ext.P8 notice was issued forrecovery of a sum of `.4,81,923/= plus interest. 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.The following facts cannot be disputed: Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitionerunder the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000.Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before theAppellate Commissioner, who passed Ext.P6 order, modifying theassessment order. The petitioner filed a further appeal to thetribunal along with an application to condone delay of 1270 days.By Ext.P7 order, the tribunal rejected the application to condone delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 3. It is the consequential order which was sought to be challenged by the petitioner. We heard the learned counsel for theappellant and the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue would point out thatpursuant to Ext.P8, the appellant did not turn up. It is also pointedout that there was no case of any mistake in the sense that there isany calculation mistake. It is submitted that the sum of`.4,81,923/= represents the original demand with interest and nodoubt, further interest is demanded. Anyway, the appellant did notturn up before the authority and point out the existence of anymistake. The assessment has become final. It may be true thatconsequent upon the dismissal of the application for condonationof delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal, the appeal wasdismissed. The said orders have become final. Therefore, this is acase where the assessment has become final. All that the appellantseeks to challenge, is the consequential proceedings for recovery. W.A.No.1865/12 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not think that the appellant has made out any case for interference withExt.P8. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the learnedSingle Judge. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= K. HARILAL, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy//