Wp(C)/7734/2013 Of Mustafa Usman v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 7734 of 2013 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- MUSTAFA USMAN AGED 79 YEARS 'AYSHA', ANELA ROAD, KOYILANDY BY P.A.HOLDER, SRI.USMAN ABOOBACKER. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20-03-2013, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos. 7735 & 7736/13, THE COURT ON THE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7734/13 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1:COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DT 20.8.2007.EXT.P2: COPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S 27(1)(C) DATED 27.6.12. EXT.P3:COPY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 PENALTY ORDER. EXT.P4:COPY OF NOTICE U/S 22(1) OF THE IT ACT DT.27.9.12.EXT.P5:COPY OF STAY PETITION DT 15.10.12. EXT.P6:COPY OF ORDER ON EXT.P5 APPLICATION PASSED BYTHIRD RESPONDENT DT 18.2.13. //True Copy// Rp PA to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 7734, 7735 & 7736 OF 2013 ============================= Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2013 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2.In these writ petitions, Ext.P6 orders passed by the 3[rd]respondent are under challenge. By these orders, stay ofcollection of penalty levied on the petitioners pending disposal oftheir appeals have been declined mainly on the ground of theincompetence of the counsel for the petitioners to represent themin the appeals. The reason stated is that the counsel had clarifiedthat he never met the appellants and that he was not aware oftheir whereabouts. 3.It is reiterated before this Court also that the onlyquestion that was asked by the appellate authority was whetherthe counsel had met the appellants, and to which, since they wererepresented by their Power of Attorney, answer in the negativewas given and thereafter no further hearing was granted. 4.In my view, to represent a client, it is not necessarythat the counsel should personally meet the appellant. This is all the more so, in cases where the appellants are represented bytheir Power of Attorney holders. Therefore, the view taken inExt.P6 is untenable. For that reason, I set aside Ext.P6 orders. Writ petitions are therefore disposed of directing that the 3[rd]respondent shall hear the counsel and pass fresh orders on thestay petitions, which shall be done in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE