Wa/2366/2007 Of V.k.sreenivasan v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Investi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2007 / 12TH ASWINA 1929 W. A.No. 2366 of 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO..18324/2007 Dated 14/06/2007 APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------ V.K.SREENIVASAN, 'SANTHI NIVAS', 35/1425, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, 'KENDRIYA BHAVAN', KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. GEORGE K.GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2366 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] October, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.18324 of 2007, dated 14[th] June, 2007, the petitioner in the Writ Petition haspresented this appeal. 2. For the assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82, the petitioner hadfiled appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin inI.T.A.Nos.376 and 377 of 1994. The Tribunal has disposed of the appeals onmerits. But, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, theorder passed by the Tribunal is an exparte order. 3. For setting aside the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner hadfiled an application. Further, being of the opinion that there was some delay infiling the application for rectification/review of the order, he has also filed anapplication for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had rejected those applications. 4. Yet another application came to be filed by the assessee forcondonation of delay in filing the rectification/review of the order passed by theTribunal. Even that application was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by theorders passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.376 and 377 of 1994 and other orderspassed on the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and forrectification/review of the order, the assessee had filed the Writ Petition before thisCourt. 5. Learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition and while doing sohas observed that if for any reason, the assessee is aggrieved by the orderspassed by the Tribunal, he can question the said orders in appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learnedsingle Judge, as we have already stated, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. 6. The undisputed facts are: Appeals had been filed by the assessee for theassessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Cochin Bench and those appeals are disposed of by the Tribunal. Applications hadbeen filed by the assessee for setting aside the exparte order and for condoning thedelay in filing the application for rectification/review of the order passed by the Tribunal.Those applications are also rejected. In our opinion, if for any reason, the assesseewas aggrieved by those orders, he ought to have questioned those orders by filingappropriate appeal as provided under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore,in our view, writ petition was not the remedy and the petitioner ought not have filed awrit petition questioning the orders passed by the Tribunal. 6. The undisputed facts are: Appeals had been filed by the assessee for theassessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Cochin Bench and those appeals are disposed of by the Tribunal. Applications hadbeen filed by the assessee for setting aside the exparte order and for condoning thedelay in filing the application for rectification/review of the order passed by the Tribunal.Those applications are also rejected. In our opinion, if for any reason, the assesseewas aggrieved by those orders, he ought to have questioned those orders by filingappropriate appeal as provided under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore,in our view, writ petition was not the remedy and the petitioner ought not have filed awrit petition questioning the orders passed by the Tribunal. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judgeis justified in coming to the conclusion that if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrievedby the orders passed by the Tribunal, he has to question the same in appropriateproceedings before this Court as provided under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the WritAppeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU)Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN)Judge