SUBHASH CHANDRAN.P V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/9030/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Subhash Chandran.P, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and other income tax officials, seeking a mandamus to expedite the consideration of his appeal regarding an assessment order. The petitioner argued that his appeal, filed in 2015, had not been addressed, leading to ongoing proceedings against him. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, highlighted the petitioner's history of approaching the court on what they deemed frivolous grounds. The court, acknowledging the backlog and the petitioner's repeated legal challenges, decided not to set a specific date for the appeal's consideration but directed the appellate authority to prioritize the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697422 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: C A CHACKO; C M CHARISMA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Petition; Writ of Mandamus

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 9030 of 2018 PETITIONER SUBHASH CHANDRAN.P S/O.PUNDAREEKASHAN AGED 50 YEARS SHYJU COTTAGE BRS ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 101 BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA RESPONDENTS: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM- 695 003 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, 2ND FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), KAUDIAR.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9030 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.3.2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.3.2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.3.2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 28.4.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1.3.2017 IN WPC NO 6160/2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.7.2017 OF 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.2017 IN WPC NO 25786/2017 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.10.2017 IN WA NO 1976/2017 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2018 MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29.2.2018 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT JJJ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 9030 of 2018 (C) ------------------------------------------ Dated: 29th June, 2018 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: \"i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner forthwith in a time bound manner; ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to keep in abeyance all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P1 and P11 during pendency of Ext.P4 appeal; and iii) issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.\" 2. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it will suffice if this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's statutory appeal expeditiously. W.P.(C) No. 9030/2018 -2- 3. The learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the petitioner has been habituated to approaching this Court on every frivolous ground. In that context, he has pointed out how the petitioner came before this Court on three earlier occasions. 4. At any rate, I see no strong reason to object the petitioner's prayer for an early disposal, because the appeal was filed in 2015. Yet given the pressure of work before the appellate authority, I cannot peremptorily fix a date and compel adjudication. It would only serve the interest of justice if this Court disposes of the writ petition observing that the appellate authority may consider the petitioner's request for early disposal. So observing, I dispose of this writ petition. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj 29/06/2018 "