Wp(C)/28222/2012 Of Catherine Thomas v. Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 28222 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- CATHERINE THOMAS, L/H OF SHRI.K.T.THOMAS, IC AMBER PARK, C.S.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT(S):-------------- ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I(I), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (SOUTH BLOCK), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28222 OF 2012(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2012 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents. 2. An assessment under the Income Tax Act against thepetitioner for the year 1989-90 has been completed and onreceipt of the assessment order, petitioner filed Ext.P1application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. Ordershave not been passed on that application. While so, shereceived Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent, proposing torectify the assessment order and the mistake to be rectified isthe short levy of interest under Section 234A and B of the Act atthe time of assessment. On receipt of this notice, petitionersubmitted Ext.P3 request seeking to be provide with the detailedworking of the interest. She was not given the details as soughtfor. While so, she received Ext.P4 order under Section 154 ofthe Act, along with Ext.P5 demand notice. It is on receipt of Exts.P4 and P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 application filed by her for rectification of the assessment order in question is stillpending. Therefore, the respondent should consider Ext.P1application with notice to her and pass orders thereon. 4. As far as Ext.P4 rectified order passed pursuant toExt.P2 notice is concerned, Ext.P3 shows that on receipt of thenotice, the petitioner sought detailed working of the interest thatis proposed to be levied on her. It is her case that despite thereceipt of Ext.P3, respondent did not furnish the details soughtfor and Ext.P4 under Section 154 was passed. 5. In my view, Ext.P4 order passed without furnishing thedetails sought for by the petitioner deprived her of an opportunityto file her objection to Ext.P2 and therefore Ext.P4 is an orderpassed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For thatreason I set aside Ext.P4 oder and consequently Ext.P5 demandnotice also. Respondent is directed to furnish the detailedworking of the interest proposed in Ext.P2 to the petitioner on :3 : the production of copy of this judgment. Once the details arefurnished, the petitioner will also be allowed to file her objectionto Ext.P2 and will be afforded an opportunity of hearing andthereafter a consolidated order on Exts.P1 and P2 will bepassed by the respondent. Writ Petition is disposed of . vi/ (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE