Wp(C)/6867/2021 Of Jacob Joseph Taliat v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
17 Mar 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6867/2021 Of Jacob Joseph Taliat v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
17 Mar 2021
Assessment year(s)
1992-93, 1995-96
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/6867/2021 Of Jacob Joseph Taliat v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: The petition is accordingly disposed of.
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.M.BADAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.6867 OF 2021(G)
PETITIONER/S:
JACOB JOSEPH TALIATS/O. GEORGE TALIAT, RESIDING AT 10 A, SKYLINE HOMESTEAD, CHAKOLA COLONY, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682 036, PAN- .
BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSSRI.ISAAC THOMASSRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAMSHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOSSHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 3(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018CIRCLE 3(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018
3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-IV),AREECKAL MANSION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036AREECKAL MANSION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036
4THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018
SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM- STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of March 2021
The petitioner in this writ petition is praying for directing the3[rd] respondent or any other officer currently seized of Exhibits P5and P6 applications for condonation of delay to forthwith take upand pass orders on the same.
2.Heard both sides.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat the petitioner had preferred appeal (Exts.P3 and P4) alongwith applications for condonation of delay (Exts.P5 and P6),seeking condonation of delay of four days and thirteen daysrespectively. Despite filing of the appeal in the year 2012, theapplications for condonation of delay in preferring appeals are yetto be decided. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drewmy attention to the communication at Ext.P7 and submitted thatthe petitioner had applied for amnesty scheme Vivad se Vishwas,2020 and for seeking benefit of that scheme, orders onapplications for condonation of delay are necessary. For thatpurpose, the communication at Ext.P7 is issued by the IncomeTax Officer (Tech) which is at Ext.P7.
ajt
4.
Learned Standing counsel appearing for the
respondents opposed the petition and submitted that thepetitioner may pursue his applications for condonation of delayand those can be decided in time bound manner.
5.In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposedof with the following directions:-
The petitioner is directed to appear before the 3[rd]respondent, Appellate Authority at 11.30 am on 22.03.2021. The3[rd] respondent is directed to consider and hear the applicationsfor condonation of delay (Exts.P5 and P6) and then to decidethose applications on or before 26.03.2021 and communicate theorders on those applications for condonation of delay to thepetitioner forthwith. Petitioner to communicate copy of thisjudgment to the 3[rd] respondent for necessary action. Parties toact on the authenticated copy of this judgment.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.11.2010OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NOS. 1037 AND 1197 OF 2009
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93.PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96.PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.11.2010OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NOS. 1037 AND 1197 OF 2009
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93.PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96.PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 DATED 13.02.2012CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 DATED 13.02.2012
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 DATED 22.02.2012.CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 DATED 22.02.2012.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.02.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.22.02.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.02.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED EMAIL DATED 10.03.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.DATED 10.03.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
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.