SHRI.AVARA HAJI V. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

WP(C)/19609/2012

AI Insights

The case revolves around a series of legal challenges by Shri Avara Haji against the tax assessments and subsequent demands made by the Income Tax authorities. Initially, an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the year 1999-2000 was passed against the petitioner, which was later modified but still upheld through various appeals and writ petitions. The petitioner sought to challenge the final notice of demand (Ext.P8) issued for tax and interest payments, arguing against the procedural fairness and substantive correctness of the earlier assessments and demands. However, the court found that all previous legal remedies had been exhausted, and the assessment order's finality precluded any further challenge to the demand notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699207 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C) No.14204/2012, W.A.1272/2012, W.P.(C) No.16414/2010
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C K RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Condone delay; Income Tax; Notice of demand; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 19609 of 2012 (A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHRI.AVARA HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULIKKILIYAD P.O., KOTTAPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM- 682 012. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER PALAKKAD- 678 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19609/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.02.2004. EXHIBIT-P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.11.2006. EXHIBIT-P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE FINANCE DEPT. DT.28.6.2006. EXHIBIT-P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14204/2012 DT.18.6.2012. EXHIBIT-P5;- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.A.1272/2012 DATED 18.07.2012. EXHIBIT-P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEEALS) DT.21.12.2006. EXHIBIT-P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF A TRIBUNAL DATED 29.03.2012. EXHIBIT-P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19609 of 2012 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2012 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1999-2000. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, who passed Ext.P6 order, modifying the assessment order. The petitioner filed a further appeal to the Tribunal along with an application to condone delay of 1270 days. By Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal rejected the application to condone delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 2. Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(c) No.14204 of 2012. That writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1272 of 2012, which was also dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. In the meanwhile, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner demanding payment of the tax due together with interest. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed, seeking to set aside Ext.P8 notice. W.P.(C).No.19609/2012 : 2 : 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The standing counsel for the respondents points out that after Ext.P6 order was rendered, the petitioner was issued a notice of demand in the year 2010 and at that stage, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(c) No.16414 of 2010, which was dismissed. It is stated that it was thereafter that appeal was filed to the Tribunal, which resulted in Ext.P7. 5. In this writ petition, the only prayer sought is to direct the respondents to set aside Ext.P8 notice. In my view, such a prayer is misconceived for the reason that Ext.P1 order of assessment has attained finality on account of the proceedings, noticed above. It is demanding tax and interest due under Ext.P1 that Ext.P8 notice has been issued. So long as the assessment order remains intact, a notice of demand, which is consequential in nature, cannot be nullified by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln "