Wp(C)/32887/2006 Of M/S.national Timbers, Kannur v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/24TH PHALGUNA 1933WP(C).No. 32887 of 2006 (M) ---------------------------PETITIONER(S):------------------------ M/S. NATIONAL TIMBERS, BUILDING NO.N.P.XI-965 G, KARUVANCHAL P.O., ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI P.M.JOY. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIENRESPONDENT(S):--------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I (4), KANNUR. WARD-I (4), KANNUR. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD KOCHI-682 018. CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD KOCHI-682 018. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.32887/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26/5/2003 P2COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 9/8/2006. P3COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/9/2006 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC,J ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.32887 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14[th ] day of March, 2012 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-2002. The return ought to have been filedby the petitioner on or before 31.10.1999. However, the returnwas filed only on 04.05.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed anapplication under Section 119(2)(b), seeking condonation ofdelay in making refund claim. On the application for condonationof delay, Ext.P2 notice was issued affording the petitioner anopportunity for hearing. However, the petitioner did not appearfor hearing. Therefore, the second respondent passed Ext.P3order rejecting the application made by the petitioner. It ischallenging Ext.P3, the writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the notice, hisauthorized representative had sought an adjournment and thatthe representative was informed that a fresh hearing notice wouldbe issued. It is stated that however without issuing any notice,the order in question was passed. 3. Irrespective of the justification of the petitioner for hisabsence, the fact remains that the order in question was passedwithout hearing the petitioner. Having regard to this and alsothat the consequence of Ext.P3 is the loss of the refund claim ofthe petitioner, I feel that ends of justice require that thepetitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing and onthat basis the second respondent should pass a fresh order. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and I direct the secondrespondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording anopportunity of hearing the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln