Wp(C)/27305/2016 Of Thyparambil Skaria James v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 27305 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- THYPARAMBIL SKARIA JAMES, PALLATHARA HOUSE, NELLIKAMON PO, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, ENNIKATTIL ESTATE, NEAR KSRTC BUS STATION, THIRUVALLA - 689 101. 2.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 21.4.2010. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 28.3.2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 22.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER.ISSUED BY THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 22.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER.ISSUED BY THE SON OF THE PETITIONER. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.9.2014 IN WPC NO.22924 OF 2014.WPC NO.22924 OF 2014. P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 9.8.2014 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/-REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/- P6(A) : A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 22.9.2014 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/-REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/- P6(B) : A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 16.10.2014 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/-REMITTANCE OF RS.62,100/- P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, (APPEALS) DATED 29.10.2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL.TAX, (APPEALS) DATED 29.10.2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL. P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL.APPEAL. P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.2ND RESPONDENT. P10 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT.DATED 1.3.2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT. P11 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR SETTING ASIDE EXT.P10 ORDER AND FOR RESTORING THE APPEAL DATED 7.4.2016 SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.ORDER AND FOR RESTORING THE APPEAL DATED 7.4.2016 SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. P12 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL POSTING NOTICE, POSTING THE CASE NO.27.5.2016.THE CASE NO.27.5.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL----------------------- //TRUE COPY// mbr/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27305 of 2016 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18[th] day of August 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a directionto the 2[nd] respondent, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to considerExt.P11 application for restoration. According to the petitioner,the appeal came to be dismissed for non-appearance. 2.Though it was stated in Ext.P10 order that notice ofhearing was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due,according to the petitioner, he was not in receipt of the notice,which resulted in Ext.P10 order and all these facts have beenstated in Ext.P11 application. It is also stated that during thependency of the first appeal, petitioner had remitted 25% of theoutstanding demand and a stay petition was also filed along withthe appeal, which is pending before the Tribunal. In themeantime, the petitioner is faced with coercive steps andtherefore the petitioner has approached this Court seeking theaforesaid direction. Having regard to the limited request made by the petitioner,it will only be appropriate to issue the following directions: 2.Though it was stated in Ext.P10 order that notice ofhearing was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due,according to the petitioner, he was not in receipt of the notice,which resulted in Ext.P10 order and all these facts have beenstated in Ext.P11 application. It is also stated that during thependency of the first appeal, petitioner had remitted 25% of theoutstanding demand and a stay petition was also filed along withthe appeal, which is pending before the Tribunal. In themeantime, the petitioner is faced with coercive steps andtherefore the petitioner has approached this Court seeking theaforesaid direction. Having regard to the limited request made by the petitioner,it will only be appropriate to issue the following directions: i)That the 2[nd] respondent shall consider Ext.P11 andpass appropriate orders within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii)Until disposal of Ext.P11 application, recovery steps, ifany, shall be kept in abeyance. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr