M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO-OP. THEKKIL V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1

WP(C)/12298/2012

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Chandragiri Construction Co., the petitioner, who approached the High Court of Kerala seeking directions for the rectification of errors in tax assessment orders and the consideration of their grievances by the tax authorities. The petitioner had previously availed statutory remedies which were not fruitful, leading them to file petitions for rectification of errors for several assessment years and an application for redressal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The legal contention centered around the sustainability of penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Income Tax Act, along with issues related to regular assessment procedures. The court's decision emphasized the need for the tax authorities to address the petitions and application in accordance with the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755932 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; J R NAVAZ; NIVEDITA KAMATH
• Keywords: Assessment; Garnishee proceedings; Income Tax; Penalty; Rectification
• Section: 271(1)(c); 271B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 12298 of 2012 (J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO. P.O. THEKKIL KASARGODE. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 CALICUT - 673 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1 2ND FLOOR, SANJUAN TOWERS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD KOCHI-18. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS WP(C).No. 12298 of 2012 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT-P1 - COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2 - COPY OF THE LETTER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2011. EXHIBIT-P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 EXHIBIT-P4 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05. EXHIBIT-P5 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2005.06 EXHIBIT-P6 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2003-04 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2004-05 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 15.5.2012 FOR THE AY.2005-06 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P9 - COPY OF THE GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS DCS P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.12298 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to be given to the first respondent to dispose of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 petitions (seeking to rectify the errors in the concerned orders) and so also for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application. 2. The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the sustainability of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 27 (1)(c) and 271 B of the IT Act and also with regard to the regular assessment. It is stated that, the petitioner had availed statutory remedy which, however, did not turn to be fruitful. But, pointing out the errors borne out by the records, the petitioner had preferred Exts.P6 to P8 petitions seeking to rectify the errors. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P2 before the second respondent for redressal of the grievance stated therein. WPC.No.12298/2012 2 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions made by the petitioner with reference to Exts.P6 to P8. Learned standing counsel submits that, the said petitions, styled as petitions for rectifying the errors will be maintainable, only if, there is any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court finds that this is a matter, which is to be looked into and appropriate orders could be passed by the concerned authorities, based on the merits involved. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 to P8 in accordance with law. Similarly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Both the proceedings shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON sv JUDGE WPC.No.12298/2012 2 "