Wp(C)/22037/2018 Of M/S.t.k.kuruvilla (Thachara) & Co v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 22037 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S.T.K.KURUVILLA (THACHARA) & CO BHARATH PETROLEUM DEALER, K.K.ROAD, VANDIPERIYAR - 685 533, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ABDUL MANAF. BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA) SMT.SOUMYA JAMES SMT.P.A.MENISHA RESPONDENT(S): 1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM RANGE, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 685 001. 2. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 5, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 23.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR EXHIBIT P3 (A). COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 29.10.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR 29.10.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR EXHIBIT P3 (B). COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE CHANDRIKA DAILY DATED 31.10.2015 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER DAILY DATED 31.10.2015 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.1,50,000/- FROM THE PETITIONER THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.1,50,000/- FROM THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.5000/- FROM THE PETITIONER THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.5000/- FROM THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL DAS TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 22037 of 2018 (D)======================================================= Dated this the 3[rd] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') could not submit his returns as well asaudit accounts for the assessment year 2014-2015. Itsubmitted them belatedly on 17.03.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL DAS TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 22037 of 2018 (D)======================================================= Dated this the 3[rd] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') could not submit his returns as well asaudit accounts for the assessment year 2014-2015. Itsubmitted them belatedly on 17.03.2016. 2.After about two years, the petitioner received Ext.P1notice, to which the petitioner submitted its explanation.notice, to which the petitioner submitted its explanation. The assessment authority, however, rejected thepetitioner's contentions and imposed a penalty ofRs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- through Exts.P4 and P5respectively. Later, he issued Exts.P6 and P7 demandnotices under Section 156 of the Act. Assailing Exts.P4 toP7, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2.Sri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner hasSri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made all his efforts to convince this Court that this is an W.P.(C). No. 22037 of 2018 (D) -2- eminent matter to be entertained by this Court, despite the alternative remedy the petitioner has. 3.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent department has contended that the veryorder contains a reference to the appellate provision. Hecontends that the petitioner would not establish beforethe Court any exceptions that may enable this Court toentertain this writ petition. 4.After going through Section 246 of the IT Act, I reckonthat, as mentioned in the impugned orders, thepetitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Underthese circumstances, this Court declines to entertain thiswrit petition on merits. Therefore it closes the writpetition, leaving it open for the petitioner to exhaust theappellate remedy, if so advised. that, as mentioned in the impugned orders, thepetitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Underthese circumstances, this Court declines to entertain thiswrit petition on merits. Therefore it closes the writpetition, leaving it open for the petitioner to exhaust theappellate remedy, if so advised. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE JUDGE