Wp(C)/32304/2006 Of Sri.r. Prasad v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2006 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 32304 of 2006(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.R.PRASAD (MEMBER & PERSON-IN-CHARGE), M/S. LEKSHMI TRADERS, PUTHENPURACKAL, ERUMAKUZHI, NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT: ------------------ THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KOLLAM. BY SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC, GOVT. OF INDIA(TAXES). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.32304 OF 2006-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 2006. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel, Government of India(Taxes). 2.Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P7. 3.On a proceedings initiated under Section 158BC, the petitionersuccessfully contested leading to Ext.P4 resulting in the knocking down ofthe said proceedings on ground of illegality on account of lack ofproceedings under Section 158BD and for lack of proper notice to thecompetent authority following the mandate of Section 282(2)(c) of theIncome Tax Act. 4.Following Ext.P4, the Department, in its wisdom, chose toinitiate proceedings as per Ext.P5 invoking the provisions of Sections158BC and 158BD by serving notice on the competent in the assessee. ByExt.P6, the assessee has pointed out before the authority that the assessmentunder Section 158BD read with Section 158BD is time barred and return isbeing filed in protest and they also reserve right to raise the said groundduring the course of assessment and appeal. As of now, going by Ext.P7,the matter is listed for being heard by the competent officer in the WP(C)32304/06 Department. 5.Whether Ext.P4 results in the disentitlement of the Departmentto initiate proceedings de novo and whether the proceedings initiated as perExt.P5 are time barred or are liable to fall on any other count are matterswhich, in my firm view, do not require to be considered in a writ petition atthis point of time since such issues are to be considered by the competentauthority under the Act during the course of proceedings, the hearing ofwhich is listed to tomorrow as per Ext.P7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed,however, clarifying that all legitimate objections of the assessee, includingthe effect of Ext.P4, will be considered by the competent authority beforefinalising the proceedings on the basis of Ext.P5. Sha/- Sd/-THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. -true copy- P.S. To Judge.