Wa/1976/2017 Of Subhash Chandran P v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939 WA.No. 1976 of 2017 IN WP(C).25786/2017 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25786/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALADATED 10-08-2017 ------ APPELLANT/APPELLANT -------------------------- SUBHASH CHANDRAN P SHYJU COTTAGE, B.T.S ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN SMT.V.S.RAKHEE SRI.P.V.JEEVESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKARBHAVAN, KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003 KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- I 2ND FLOOR, AAYAKARBHAVAN, KAUDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I(3), KOWDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.1976 of 2017 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9[th ]day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. aThe petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25786 of 2017 is theappellant. In the writ petition, he challenged Ext.P7, anorder passed by the first respondent granting stay ofrecovery of the tax due from the appellant subject to hisremitting 50% thereof in six equal monthly instalments. Inthe judgment under appeal, though the learned single Judgerejected the contentions, the condition requiring deposit of50% was modified and the appellant was directed to remit30%. It is this judgment which is challenged before us. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant andthe learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents. W. A. No.1976 of 2017 3. Before us, the plea raised by the learned counselwas one of denial of opportunity of hearing before Ext.P7order was passed. However, from a reading of Ext.P7, weare not persuaded to accept the contentions because Ext.P7itself shows that notice dated 16.05.2017 fixing the hearingon 12.06.2017 was issued to the appellant. It is also seenthat finding that there was no response to the notice,another attempt was made to contact the appellant overtelephone on 03.07.2017 and that when all these attemptsfail, the appellate authority proceeded to pass Ext.P7 order.Prima facie, therefore, this order shows that this is not acase where opportunity was denied to the appellant, but it isa case where opportunity extended was not availed of bythe appellant. In such a situation, we do not find anyillegality in the judgment for interference. 4. Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. 5. However, taking note of the pendency of the appealand the financial constraints that are again pressed beforeand the financial constraints that are again pressed before W. A. No.1976 of 2017 us, we direct that the appellant shall pay the amount as ordered by the learned single Judge and the first instalmentshall be made on or before 23.10.2017 and the subsequentinstalments on the 23[rd] of every succeeding month. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE