Wp(C)/11782/2017 Of M/S. Janatha Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
04 Apr 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/11782/2017 Of M/S. Janatha Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
04 Apr 2017
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/11782/2017 Of M/S. Janatha Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 11782 of 2017 (W) ----------------------------
PETITIONER:----------
M/S. JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,
XVII/541, SILVER CASTLE BUILDING,
BYE PASS ROAD, ALUVA ERNAKULAM 683 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI P.O.JOSE.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), ALUVA 683 101.CIRCLE-1(1), ALUVA 683 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, 28/243, “POORNIMA,” NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAPILLY NAGER, KOCHI-682 036.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, (BLOCK C-1 & C-11),KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP. CSEZ,KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682037.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WPC 11782 OF 2017:------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
---------------------
P1:COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.9.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.DATED 29.9.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.
P2:COPY OF ORDER IN ITA NO 6/ALY/CIT (A)-11/13-14 DATED 25.1.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3:COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22.3.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P4:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2016 IN ITA NO 128/COCH/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5:COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 27/10/2016 SUBMITTED BYTHE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V.
P.A.TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 11782 of 2017 (W)
------------------------------------------Dated: 4[th] April, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner's only contention is with respect toExt.P5 application filed before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, which seeks restoration of the appeal filed bythe petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4order.
2.This Court finds that the order passeddismissing the appeal in limine, cannot be faulted, sincethere was no appearance. However, the saidobservation need not regulate the consideration ofExt.P5. Since there is no Tribunal sitting, as of now,there can be no direction to consider the appealexpeditiously. However, the Registry of the Tribunal shallensure that the application is placed before the Tribunal
at its next sitting. The petitioner shall produce theaddress in which notice has to be served on thepetitioner before the Registry of the Tribunal within oneweek from the date of receipt of the certified copy ofthis judgment. It is also made clear that this judgmentis not intended to stay the recovery proceedings, whichwould be as per the Statute.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 4/4/17
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.