Wp(C)/36865/2004 Of Andrew Nettikkadan v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
12 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/36865/2004 Of Andrew Nettikkadan v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
12 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/36865/2004 Of Andrew Nettikkadan v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 36865 of 2004
PETITIONER:
ANDREW NETTIKKADAN, PROPRIETOR,
JOSEPH THOMAS SONS & COMPANY,
ANAND BAZAR, COCHIN-682 016.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), CIRCLE-I, DIVISION-I(1),ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX), ADDITIONAL BENCH,488-489,
ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 035.
3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)
SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36865 of 2004
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE S.154 NOTICE DATED 6.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI, TO THE PETITIONER.THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2003 PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP(C) NO. 11160-11171 OF 2003TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX STAYING THE FURTHER OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP(C) NO. 11160-11171 OF 2003TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX STAYING THE FURTHER OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 31.7.2003 IN W.P.(MISCELLANEOUS PETITION) NO. 26367 OF 2003 IN W.P.(C) NO. 21216 OF 2003.MADRAS DATED 31.7.2003 IN W.P.(MISCELLANEOUS PETITION) NO. 26367 OF 2003 IN W.P.(C) NO. 21216 OF 2003.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2003 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35550 OF 2003 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.NO. 35550 OF 2003 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 15.3.2004 PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI.PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
ADDL.EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES IN 273 ITR AT STATUTES PAGE NO. 236.PAGE NO. 236.
ADDL.EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE AD-INTERIM ORDER IN THE WRIT PETITION DATED 19.7.2005. DATED 19.7.2005.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P (C) No. 36865 of 2004
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12[th] day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in this writ petition impugns anorder passed by the Settlement Commission (Income tax andWealth tax) rectifying the order passed under 245 D of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. Challenge in this writ petition withregard to the power of the Settlement Commission to passsuch order. In fact, the issue covered against the petitioner inthe light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court inW.A No. 2133/ 2003. The assessee also had challenged itbefore the Honourable Supreme Court. SLP was also notadmitted.In the light of the above, the writ petition isdismissed accordingly. No costs.
lsn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.