GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/9535/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Gopala Krishnan Nair, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, concerning an income tax matter. The initial judgment was set aside because the correct authority to consider the petitioner's application was the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, not the Commissioner in Thiruvananthapuram. The court directed the files to be transferred to the appropriate authority and granted additional time for the proceedings to be completed, ensuring the petitioner receives a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699595 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: R KUMAR; A LAL
• Keywords: Impleading; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"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: bp WP(C).No. 9535 of 2017 (N) --------------------------- 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. WP(C).No. 9535 of 2017 (N) -------------------------- EXHIBIT-P22: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 15/16. EXHIBIT-P23: DRAFT COPY OF REPRESENTATION. EXHIBIT-P24: COPY OF FRONT PAGE OF REPRESENTATION SHOWING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT-P25: COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P(C). No.9535 of 2017 [N] ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT Read order dated 04.08.2017: “A statement has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, who was impleaded in the writ petition, that he is not the concerned authority, who has to consider the application filed by the petitioner and also submits that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, is the concerned authority. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said fact came to the notice of the respondent, only when a hearing was conducted as directed in the writ petition. On realising that it is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru who has the jurisdiction to consider the application filed by the petitioner, the entire files have been transmitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru, is the contention. 2. In such circumstance, it is thought fit that the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.9535 of 2017 on 21.03.2017 be withdrawn, for the purpose of impleading the proper respondent. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.9535 of 2017 would stand withdrawn. 3. “The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bengaluru” is suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent. The learned W.P(C). No.9535 of 2017 [N] 2 Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for the additional 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to get instructions as to what time would be required to consider the application. If the learned Standing Counsel also puts forth date of hearing, there shall be a direction to hear the petitioner in the judgment itself. Post on 11.08.2017.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the matter is being dealt with by the authority at Bangalore and some time is required to complete the proceedings. In such circumstance, the above writ petition is disposed of, granting six months time to complete the proceedings, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge sp/13/10/17 "