SRI.P K VASAVAN V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/26290/2013

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri. P. K. Vasavan Palanilkunathil Mezhuzveli Pathanamthitta challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench, which refused to condone a delay of four years, four months, and two days in filing an appeal against an earlier appellate order. The petitioner had also faced criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which included a conviction and imprisonment. The court considered the petitioner's health issues and incarceration period as factors contributing to the delay. Ultimately, the court decided to condone the delay on the condition that the petitioner pays a specified amount to the Income Tax Department within the stipulated time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758868 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Negotiable Instruments Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; NIVEDITA KAMATH; R SREEJITH; SULEKHA C S; T S VIKEESHA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Delay condonation; Income Tax; Writ petition
• Section: 138

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/6TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 26290 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SRI.P. K. VASAVAN PALANILKUNNATHIL MEZHUVELI PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.SULEKHA BEEVI C S SMT.T.S.VIKEESHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 3, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH 682 016. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.26290/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.03.2005. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2005. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26290 OF 2013 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 appellate order was challenged in Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent tribunal. The appeal was accompanied by Ext.P4 petition for stay and Ext.P5 petition for condonation of delay. The delay of four years four months and two days has been refused to be condoned by Ext.P6 order. The same is impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is seen that proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act had also been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was reportedly convicted for offence alleged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner underwent imprisonment for the period from 24.11.2006 till 08.04.2008. It is also stated that the petitioner was sick before he suffered incarceration as evidenced by the medical certificate produced. 2 WP(C) No. 26290/2013 3. There is ofcourse some laches on the part of the petitioner in not taking steps to file Ext.P3 appeal in time. But every endeavour should be made to have a disposal of the appeal on merits rather than non suiting the appellant on technical grounds. I am inclined to condone the delay and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to have his appeal heard on merits. This can ofcourse be only on terms taking note of the fact that the present liability comes to about `10 lakhs. 4. Ext.P6 order would stand quashed and the delay in filing Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent would stand condoned. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of `3 lakhs with the first respondent within two months. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.11.2013 and the second instalment on or before 30.012.2013. The challan evidencing the deposit shall be produced before the second respondent in which event Ext.P3 appeal shall be disposed of on merits. 5. Ext.P6 order would remain intact in case the petitioner commits default in the payment of `3 lakhs within the 3 WP(C) No. 26290/2013 time as directed above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd "