Wp(C)/24588/2018 Of Gopalakrishnan v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24588 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) GOPALAKRISHNAN, THEVADIPARAMBIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RANGE 1, NON-CORPORATE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R. BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(C)/2017-18/1007862165(1) DATED 02.12.2017, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 22.12.2017, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 22.12.2017, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAGE NO.67 (DT. 13.06.2018) OF THE ENTRY REGISTER AS EVIDENCE OF APPEARANCE BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 13.06.2018 (SI.NO.27).EXHIBIT P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2018, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 28.06.2018 FOR RS. 7,49, 787/-, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL True Copy A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.24588 of 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2018 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, impugning an order under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has approached this Court.This order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Thepetitioner was served with a notice. However, on the date ofpostings petitioner was absent. This is the reason for passingthe order without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner refers toExt.P4, which is a register maintained at the reception of theIncome Tax Office. According to the petitioner the Charteredaccountant was present on 13.06.2018, however, he could notmeet the officer concerned for want of time of the latter. It may be difficult to examine the veracity of the claimmade by the petitioners. Considering peculiar facts of the case,it is appropriate to order opportunity to be given to thepetitioner to contest the matter on merits. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not cared to enquire about the matter before the impugned order was passed, it is appropriateto order payment of cost of 10,000/-. Impugned order is set₹aside. Petitioner is directed to pay the costs before therespondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this judgment. The petitioner shall appear before theassessing authority on 16.08.2018 at 11 a.m. Sd/- (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) True copy P.A to Judge DG