Wp(C)/9173/2018 Of M/S.st. Joseph's Granites v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 9173 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S.ST. JOSEPH'S GRANITES ACHENKKUNNU, VALAKKAVU, P.O.MULAYAM, THRISSUR - 680 751, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. JOSE K.FRANCIS. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S) 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE 2, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS), AAYAKAKR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. BAZAR BRANCH, THRISSUR. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR (WITHOUT ATTACHMENT) FILED ON 19.03.2014 BY THE CBI. ON 19.03.2014 BY THE CBI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY U/S.173 CR.PC ON COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION. REPORT FILED BY U/S.173 CR.PC ON COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT. 29.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 29.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 30.08.2017. 30.08.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 31.08.2017 IN W.P.C.NO. 28406 OF 2017. 31.08.2017 IN W.P.C.NO. 28406 OF 2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.12.2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES MENTIONED THEREIN. ANNEXURES MENTIONED THEREIN. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DT. 15.01.2018 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16.01.2018. ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16.01.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WEALTH STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. PARTNERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DT. 31.07.2017 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/-. REMITTANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/-. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9173 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DT. 31.07.2017 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/-. REMITTANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/-. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9173 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Theassessment of the petitioner for the year 2014-’15 has beenrevised by the assessing officer invoking the powers underSection 143(3) of the Act. Ext.P3 is the order of assessmentissued in respect of the petitioner for the year 2014-’15.The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order of assessment inappeal before the second respondent. Ext.P4 is the appealpreferred by the petitioner in this regard. Ext.P5 is theapplication preferred by the petitioner for stay in Ext.P4appeal. Ext.P5 application for stay has now been disposedof in terms of Ext.P11 order granting the petitioner the staysought for, on condition that they shall pay 10% of the WPC 9173/18 -:2:- demand. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in this writpetition. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents. 3. The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that they are an assessee for the last so manyyears; that all throughout the petitioner has been filing trueand correct returns of their income; that the self-assessmentmade by the petitioner has never been subjected to scrutinyat any point of time; that in relation to the returns filed byone of the sister concerns of the petitioner for the year2011-’12, an officer of the department demanded bribe fromthe petitioner; that the matter was complained by thepetitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation and on thesaid complaint, the officer concerned is being prosecuted;that the returns submitted by the petitioner for the year2014-’15 has been taken for scrutiny by the officersconcerned to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for havinglodged compliant against their colleague and that it is on WPC 9173/18 -:3:- account of the very same reason, the assessment of thepetitioner for the relevant year has been revised raising ahuge demand. 4. As noted above, in terms of the impugned order, the petitioner has been granted the interim staysought by them. Of course, they were imposed a conditionthat they shall pay 10% of the demand for enjoying thebenefit of the stay. The question is whether the appellateauthority is justified in imposing the aforesaid condition.The contention of the petitioner, as noted above, is that thereturns filed by them have been taken for scrutinymaliciously with a view to fasten liability on them for havinglodged a complaint against an officer of the department. Itis brought to the notice of this Court in several cases thatthe files are selected for scrutinywith the aid of computers.Further, in terms of the impugned order, the petitioner isasked to pay a meagre portion of the demand. In thecircumstances, I do not find any justification to entertain thewrit petition challenging Ext.P11 order, in exercise of mydiscretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having confronted with the said fact situation, Constitution of India. 5. Having confronted with the said fact situation, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for indulgence of thisCourt to extend the time prescribed for payment of 10% ofthe demand made in terms of Ext.P11 order. In so far as thepetitioner challenged Ext.P11 order in the writ petition andsince the writ petition is not being entertained, I deem itappropriate to extend the time granted to the petitioner forpayment of 10% of the demand in terms of the impugnedorder till 12.4.2018. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- vps 26/3 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE /True Copy/ PS to Judge