Wp(C)/9535/2017 Of Gopala Krishnan Nair v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938 WP(C).No. 9535 of 2017 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, TC:NO: 4/2595(1), KURAVANKONAM, KOWIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ATHAM, KRA-A-19, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT : ---------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYA KHAR, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE DUPLICATE OF THE PARTITION DEED NUMBER 2410/84.EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 11/91.EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 7/91.EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 9/91.EXHIBIT-P5: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 10/91.EXHIBIT-P6: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 8/91.EXHIBIT-P7: COPY OF PATTA NO:LA II 1/92.EXHIBIT-P8: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.EXHIBIT-P9: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 12/4/96.EXHIBIT-P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/1996.EXHIBIT-P11: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD 5/12/88.EXHIBIT-P12: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 98/99.EXHIBIT-P13: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 02/03.EXHIBIT-P14: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 05/06.EXHIBIT-P15: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 07/08.EXHIBIT-P16: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 08/09.EXHIBIT-P17: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 09/10.EXHIBIT-P18: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 10/11.EXHIBIT-P19: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 11/12.EXHIBIT-P20: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 13/14. EXHIBIT-P21: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 14/15. -------------------------- bp K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.----------------------------------W.P(C). No.9535 of 2017 [N] ----------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2017JUDGMENT Read order dated 04.08.2017: “A statement has been filed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, who was impleadedin the writ petition, that he is not the concernedauthority, who has to consider the applicationfiled by the petitioner and also submits that thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5,Bengaluru, is the concerned authority. It is alsosubmitted by the learned Standing Counsel thatthe said fact came to the notice of therespondent, only when a hearing was conductedas directed in the writ petition. On realising thatit is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5,Bengaluru who has the jurisdiction to considerthe application filed by the petitioner, the entirefiles have been transmitted to the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, is thecontention. 2. In such circumstance, it is thoughtfit that the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.9535of 2017 on 21.03.2017 be withdrawn, for thepurpose of impleading the proper respondent.The judgment in W.P.(C) No.9535 of 2017 wouldstand withdrawn. 3. “The Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5, Bengaluru” is suo motu impleadedas the additional 2[nd] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to take notice forthe additional 2[nd] respondent. The learnedStanding Counsel is directed to get instructionsas to what time would be required to considerthe application. If the learned Standing Counselalso puts forth date of hearing, there shall be adirection to hear the petitioner in the judgmentitself. Post on 11.08.2017.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the matter is being dealtwith by the authority at Bangalore and sometime is required to complete the proceedings. 3. “The Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5, Bengaluru” is suo motu impleadedas the additional 2[nd] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to take notice forthe additional 2[nd] respondent. The learnedStanding Counsel is directed to get instructionsas to what time would be required to considerthe application. If the learned Standing Counselalso puts forth date of hearing, there shall be adirection to hear the petitioner in the judgmentitself. Post on 11.08.2017.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the matter is being dealtwith by the authority at Bangalore and sometime is required to complete the proceedings. In such circumstance, the above writpetition is disposed of, granting six monthstime to complete the proceedings, afteraffording a reasonable opportunity of hearingto the petitioner. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. //True Copy// sp/13/10/17 P.A. to Judge