Wp(C)/23227/2017 Of M.p.govindan & Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017/22ND ASHADHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 23227 of 2017 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- M.P.GOVINDAN & SONS PVT. LTD H.NO. 120,M.G NAGAR, KILIKOLLOOR P.O, KOLLAM 691 004,KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.M. GOVINDAN NADARAJAN BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENTS:------------ 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM - 691 001 CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM - 691 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS: -------------------- RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT: NIL -------------------- //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.23227 Of 2017 -( C) .............................................................Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5order passed by the 2[nd] respondent, and Exts. P8 and P9consequential orders passed by the 1[st] respondent. In the writpetition, it is the case of the petitioner that his application forwaiver of interest under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act forthe assessment years 1981-1982, 1982-1983, 1983-1984, 1984-1985 and 1985-1986 came to be partly rejected, after finding thatthe petitioner had not satisfied all the conditions prescribed underSection 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act for considering hisapplication for a total waiver of interest. It is the case of thepetitioner that, in Ext.P5 order, which formed the basis for Exts.P8and P9 consequential orders, the 2[nd] respondent did not considerthe reasons for the absence of the petitioner at the hearing. It issubmitted that if he is given an opportunity for hearing before the2[nd] respondent, he will be a position to explain the reasons for W.P.(C).No.23227 Of 2017 -( C) absence at the earlier hearing, and also demonstrate that hecomplies with the conditions under Section 220 (2A) for thepurposes of total waiver of interest. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for therespondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseas also the submissions made across the bar, and taking note ofthe explanation offered by the petitioner for his absence at thehearing before the 2[nd] respondent on 11.05.2017, I am of the viewthat the petitioner ought to be given another opportunity forpresenting the facts before the 2[nd] respondent. To enable thepetitioner to do so, I quash Exts.P5, P8 and P9 and direct the 2[nd]respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitionerunder Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act afresh, after hearingthe petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent shall pass orders in the matter,after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a W.P.(C).No.23227 Of 2017 -( C) copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petitionbefore the 2[rd] respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/13.07.17