Wp(C)/19609/2012 Of Shri.avara Haji v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 19609 of 2012 (A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHRI.AVARA HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULIKKILIYAD P.O., KOTTAPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM- 682 012. ERNAKULAM- 682 012. 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 PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.2004. EXHIBIT-P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.11.2006. EXHIBIT-P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE FINANCE DEPT.DT.28.6.2006. EXHIBIT-P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14204/2012 DT.18.6.2012. EXHIBIT-P5;- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.A.1272/2012DATED 18.07.2012. EXHIBIT-P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEEALS)DT.21.12.2006. EXHIBIT-P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF A TRIBUNAL DATED 29.03.2012. EXHIBIT-P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19609 of 2012 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th ] day of September, 2012 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against thepetitioner under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year1999-2000. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appealbefore the Appellate Commissioner, who passed Ext.P6 order,modifying the assessment order. The petitioner filed a furtherappeal to the Tribunal along with an application to condonedelay of 1270 days. By Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal rejected theapplication to condone delay and consequently, the appeal wasalso dismissed. 2. Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(c)No.14204 of 2012. That writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P4judgment. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed WritAppeal No.1272 of 2012, which was also dismissed by Ext.P5judgment. In the meanwhile, Ext.P8 notice was issued to thepetitioner demanding payment of the tax due together withinterest. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed,seeking to set aside Ext.P8 notice. W.P.(C).No.19609/2012 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The standing counsel for the respondents points outthat after Ext.P6 order was rendered, the petitioner was issueda notice of demand in the year 2010 and at that stage, heapproached this Court by filing W.P.(c) No.16414 of 2010, whichwas dismissed. It is stated that it was thereafter that appealwas filed to the Tribunal, which resulted in Ext.P7. 5. In this writ petition, the only prayer sought is to direct the respondents to set aside Ext.P8 notice. In my view, such aprayer is misconceived for the reason that Ext.P1 order ofassessment has attained finality on account of the proceedings,noticed above. It is demanding tax and interest due underExt.P1 that Ext.P8 notice has been issued. So long as theassessment order remains intact, a notice of demand, which isconsequential in nature, cannot be nullified by this Court.Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE