Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48334
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
M/S CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION CO-OP THEKKIL – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAPEALS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 12298/2012
Authorities must address petitions for rectification based on evident errors and provide timely resolutions.
Headnote:
Penalty - Taxation - Income Tax Act - Sections 27(1)(c), 271B - The court directed authorities to consider the petitions for rectification of errors and emphasized the need for prompt action based on merit, clarifying that petitions must show apparent errors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions for the disposal of specific petitions regarding the rectification of errors under the Income Tax Act and an application for redressal of grievances.
Issues: The issues concerned the sustainability of the penalties imposed under the Income Tax Act and the regular assessment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that errors must be apparent on the record to warrant rectification and affirmed the obligation of the authorities to act promptly on such petitions.
Final Decision: The court directed the relevant authorities to consider and finalize the petitions within one month.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to be given to the first respondent to dispose of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 petitions (seeking to rectify the errors in the concerned orders) and so also for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application.
2. The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the sustainability of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 27 (1)(c) and 271 B of the IT Act and also with regard to the regular assessment. It is stated that, the petitioner had availed statutory remedy which, however, did not turn to be fruitful. But, pointing out the errors borne out by the records, the petitioner had preferred Exts.P6 to P8 petitions seeking to rectify the errors. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P2 before the second respondent for redressal of the grievance stated therein.
WPC.No.12298/2012 2
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions made by the petitioner with reference to Exts.P6 to P8. Learned standing counsel submits that, the said petitions, styled as petitions for rectifying the errors will be maintainable, only if, there is any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court finds that this is a matter, which is to be looked into and appropriate orders could be passed by the concerned authorities, based on the merits involved.
4. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 to P8 in accordance with law. Similarly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Both the proceedings shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON sv JUDGE WPC.No.12298/2012 2
