Wp(C)/12298/2012 Of M/S. Chandragiri Construction Co-Op. Thekkil v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 12298 of 2012 (J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO. P.O. THEKKIL KASARGODE. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 CALICUT - 673 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1 2ND FLOOR, SANJUAN TOWERS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD KOCHI-18. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS WP(C).No. 12298 of 2012 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1 - COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2 - COPY OF THE LETTER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2011.21.12.2011. EXHIBIT-P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 EXHIBIT-P4 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05.FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. EXHIBIT-P5 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2005.06FOR THE A.Y. 2005.06 EXHIBIT-P6 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2003-04 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. FOR THE AY.2003-04 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2004-05 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.FOR THE AY.2004-05 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2005-06 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.FOR THE AY.2005-06 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P9 - COPY OF THE GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2012.RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2012. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ' :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.12298 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to be given to the first respondent to dispose of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 petitions(seeking to rectify the errors in the concerned orders) and so also for adirection to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2application. 2.The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to thesustainability of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section27 (1)(c) and 271 B of the IT Act and also with regard to the regularassessment. It is stated that, the petitioner had availed statutory remedywhich, however, did not turn to be fruitful. But, pointing out the errorsborne out by the records, the petitioner had preferred Exts.P6 to P8petitions seeking to rectify the errors. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P2before the second respondent for redressal of the grievance statedtherein. WPC.No.12298/2012 3.Learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions made bythe petitioner with reference to Exts.P6 to P8. Learned standingcounsel submits that, the said petitions, styled as petitions for rectifyingthe errors will be maintainable, only if, there is any error apparent onthe face of the record. This Court finds that this is a matter, which is tobe looked into and appropriate orders could be passed by the concernedauthorities, based on the merits involved. WPC.No.12298/2012 3.Learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions made bythe petitioner with reference to Exts.P6 to P8. Learned standingcounsel submits that, the said petitions, styled as petitions for rectifyingthe errors will be maintainable, only if, there is any error apparent onthe face of the record. This Court finds that this is a matter, which is tobe looked into and appropriate orders could be passed by the concernedauthorities, based on the merits involved. 4.The writ petition is disposed of, directing the firstrespondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 to P8 inaccordance with law. Similarly, the second respondent is directed toconsider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance withlaw. Both the proceedings shall be finalised as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with acopy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for furthersteps. sv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGEJUDGE