M/S.T.K.KURUVILLA (THACHARA) & CO V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/22037/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S T.K. Kuruvilla (Thachara) & Co, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum, represented by its partner Abdul Manaf, who approached the High Court of Kerala challenging the penalties imposed by the Income Tax Department for the late submission of tax returns and audit accounts for the assessment year 2014-2015. The petitioner submitted the required documents belatedly on March 17, 2016, and received a notice (Ext.P1) from the tax authority, followed by a rejection of their explanation and the imposition of penalties amounting to Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.5,000. The petitioner contested these penalties through this writ petition, arguing against the imposition and seeking relief from the court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755191 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: S EASWARAN; P MURALEEDHARAN; M A AUGUSTINE; P SREEKUMAR; SOUMYA JAMES; P A MENISHA
• Keywords: Efficacious Alternative Remedy; Income Tax; Penalty; Writ petition
• Section: 246; 271B; 271F; 156

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 22037 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S.T.K.KURUVILLA (THACHARA) & CO BHARATH PETROLEUM DEALER, K.K.ROAD, VANDIPERIYAR - 685 533, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ABDUL MANAF. BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA) SMT.SOUMYA JAMES SMT.P.A.MENISHA RESPONDENT(S): 1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM RANGE, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 685 001. 2. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 5, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22037 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 23.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR EXHIBIT P3 (A). COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 29.10.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR EXHIBIT P3 (B). COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE CHANDRIKA DAILY DATED 31.10.2015 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.1,50,000/- FROM THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEMANDING RS.5000/- FROM THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE DAS DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 22037 of 2018 (D) ======================================================= Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') could not submit his returns as well as audit accounts for the assessment year 2014-2015. It submitted them belatedly on 17.03.2016. 2. After about two years, the petitioner received Ext.P1 notice, to which the petitioner submitted its explanation. The assessment authority, however, rejected the petitioner's contentions and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- through Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. Later, he issued Exts.P6 and P7 demand notices under Section 156 of the Act. Assailing Exts.P4 to P7, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Sri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made all his efforts to convince this Court that this is an -2- W.P.(C). No. 22037 of 2018 (D) eminent matter to be entertained by this Court, despite the alternative remedy the petitioner has. 3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent department has contended that the very order contains a reference to the appellate provision. He contends that the petitioner would not establish before the Court any exceptions that may enable this Court to entertain this writ petition. 4. After going through Section 246 of the IT Act, I reckon that, as mentioned in the impugned orders, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. Under these circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this writ petition on merits. Therefore it closes the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy, if so advised. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das 03.07.2018 "