ANIL KUMAR SHARMA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/5079/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Kumar Sharma, the petitioner, who objected to a valuation report concerning his land in Kumbalam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The valuation report was issued by the District Valuation Officer, which the petitioner contested through an objection (Ext.P7) seeking a fresh valuation. The primary legal issue was the validity of the valuation report (Ext.P4) and the procedural handling of the objection by the income tax authorities. The court's decision emphasized the need for the income tax department to consider the petitioner's objections and finalize the matter, rather than adjudicating on the validity of the valuation report at this stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761374 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAIBY KIDANGOOR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Land; Objection; Valuation report

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/8TH PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 5079 of 2013 (H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA AGED 40 YEARS 8/2117-A, SHARMA NIKETAN, GUJARATHI ROAD MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR THARAKKANDOM CENTRE, BANERJEE ROAD, COCHIN-18. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR THARAKKANDOM CENTRE, BANERJEE ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER VALUATION CELL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 611 ANNA SALAI 5TH FLOOR, KANNAMMAI BUILDING, CHENNAI-600006. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5079 of 2013 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING F. NO. DVO/MDS/CG(15)/2011-12 DATED 19-3-12 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23-3-12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE REPORT OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MARADU SRO DATED NIL. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING F. NO. DVO/MDS/CG(15)/11-12 DATED 26-7-12. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE DVO CALICUT BEARING NO. 43:2130 DATED 5-11-12 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTS BY THE DVO TRIVANDRUM BEARING NO. 45:1433 DATED 12-6-12. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 7-2-13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SKV ANTONY DOMINIC, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).5079/2013 - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner's grievance is mainly regarding Ext.P4, a valuation report concerning 68.064 cents of land comprised in R.S.216/1, 216/2, 216/3 and 216/5 of Block No.15 of Kumbalam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. On receipt of a copy of the valuation report, petitioner filed Ext.P7 objection before the 3rd respondent objecting to Ext.P4 and also seeking a fresh valuation. It is at that stage this writ petition is filed with a prayer mainly to invalidate Ext.P4. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is still not finalised and that the 3rd respondent is yet to hear the petitioner and W.P.(C).5079/13 2 pass final orders in the matter. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that this writ petition is premature. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 3rd respondent will hear the petitioner, consider Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P7 objection filed by the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge "