Wp(C)/243/2007 Of C.h. Raghavan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kozhikode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 243 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.H.RAGHAVAN, GANAPATHY VILLA, KOTTAKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADVS.MR.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH MR.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) MR.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.243/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DTD. 28.9.02UNDER SECTION 203 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETIION DTD. 6.11.02. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.5.06 FROM THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THEPETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.243 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 5[th] day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P3 is the order in challenge. Facts of the case isthat by Ext.P1 the petitioner filed an application for refundof the deposit. Along with Ext.P1 he filed Ext.P2 applicationfor condoning the delay in filing the application. The saidapplication has been rejected by Ext.P3. All that is stated inExt.P3 order of the Deputy Commissioner, is that theCommissioner of Income Tax, the respondent herein, hasconsidered the petition and that as there is no sufficientand valid reason for condoning the delay in filing theapplication for refund, the petition is rejected. No reason,much less any valid reason, has been assigned in Ext.P3for rejecting Exg.P1 and P2. 2. Although the Standing Counsel for the respondentreferred to me the provisions contained in Section 329(2) WP(c).No.243/07 (c) of the Income Tax Act and contended that the applicationwas was filed beyond the statutorily prescribed period, sincesuch reason is not reflected in Ext.P3 order, Ext.P3 will standset aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing toreconsider Exts.P1 and P2, in the light of the relevantstatutory provisions contained and pass speaking order in thematter. vi/ (ANTONY DOMINIC)JUDGE