Wp(C)/3780/2011 Of Shri.mohammed Rafi Syed v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3780 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI.MOHAMMED RAFI SYED, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.H.SYED, RAJI MANZIL, KADAKKAL, MANCODE VILLAGE, MATHIRA P.O. KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN - 691536 (NON-RESIDDENT INDIAN, HAVING THE ADDRESS P.O. BOX 24185, SHARJAH - U.A.E.) BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOEM TAX (INV), CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17[th] day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Through Ext.P6A and P6B orders, the assessmentsagainst the petitioner, for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06were completed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.According to the petitioner there occurred some errorapparent on the face of the record and hence the petitionerhad submitted Exts.P7A and P7B rectification petitionsbefore the 1[st] respondent. It is stated that thoseapplications are pending consideration and disposal beforethe 1[st] respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1[st]respondent is not disposing those applications and in themeanwhile coercive steps of recovery for realising theamounts covered under Exts.P6A and P6B are beingpursued. 2.Learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents contended that the issue agitated underExts.P7 and P7A applications are not relating to any error W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V apparent on the face of the records. But the attempt of thepetitioner is to bring certain new materials which were notproduced at the time of assessment. It is the furthercontention of the respondents that, if the petitioner has gotany grievance against the orders of assessment, the properremedy is to file statutory appeals. 3.Considering the rival contentions, I am of the viewthat it is not proper or justified on the part of this Court toenter upon merits of the contentions, since it is evident thatExts.P7A and P7B applications were not considered by the1[st] respondent. I am also not proposing to enter upon anyfinding as to whether such applications are maintainable ornot. Whether there was any apparent error on the face ofthe records which are liable to be rectified, is a matter forthe authority concerned to decide at the first instance. I amof the view that interest of justice will be served if adirection is issued to the 1[st] respondent to consider and passappropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P7A, within a time to bestipulated, and till then to restrain the coercive steps of W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V recovery. 4.In the result, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders onExts.P7A and P7B applications, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible,at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time orders are passed by the 1[[st]] 5.Till such time orders are passed by the 1[[st]]respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts coveredunder Exts.P6A and P6B shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIMJUDGE ab