DR. REMANI KRISHNAN V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/4062/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Remani Krishnan, the petitioner, who is challenging the order Ext.P3 passed by the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. The dispute arose from an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2007-08 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam. The petitioner sought a revision of this order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the assessment was based on a wrong interpretation of documents and that he was not given an effective opportunity to represent his case before the assessment order was passed. The 3rd respondent's rejection of the revision application (Ext.P3) led to this writ petition, where the petitioner contended that his arguments were not considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722448 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASWIN GOPAKUMAR; PRAVEEN; ANWIN GOPAKUMAR; KALA NAMBIAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Effective representation; Non application of mind; Revision application
• Section: 264

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/12TH PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 4062 of 2012 (G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR. REMANI KRISHNAN, ASVINI HOSPITAL, CURZON ROAD, KOLLAM-691 013. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, SRI.PRAVEEN.H., SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM RANGE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 4062 of 2012 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2007-08. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVISION DATED 14/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4062 OF 2012(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2012 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assesse on the rolls of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08. Seeking revision of the said order petitioner filed Ext.P2 invoking the powers of the 3rd respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Various grounds have been urged in Ext.P2. When notice of hearing was issued an authorized representative of the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2 application. It is challenging Ext.P3 order that this writ petition has been filed,. 2. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P3 is illegal in so far as none of the contentions raised either in Ext.P2 or during the personal hearing, were considered by WPC.No. 4062/2012 :2 : the 3rd respondent while issuing the said order. 3. Having considered the submissions made and also on going thorough Ext.P3 order I feel that the counsel for the petitioner is fully justified in his contentions. The main contention raised in Ext.P2 is to the effect that the petitioner could not make effective representation on receipt of notice before the assessment order was passed. Ext.P3 also shows that during the course of personal hearing that was granted, an additional contention was also raised by the representative was to the effect that the additions made by the 2nd respondent were based on a wrong interpretation of the documents available with the department. In Ext.P3 order none of these contentions have been dealt with by the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, all that the 3rd respondent has stated is that assessment order was passed after sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, which is not an answer to the contention raised. In my view Ext.P3 order shows total non application of the mind and since none of the contentions raised are dealt with by the 3rd WPC.No. 4062/2012 :3 : respondent, this order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter duly adverting to the contentions raised. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ The words “2nd respondent” occurring in the second line of last paragraph of the judgment dated 2.3.2012 in writ petition(c). No.4062/2012 -G are substituted as “3rd respondent” as per order dated 27.7.2012 in I.A.No.9977/2012. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial) "