Skip to content


Charles C. George Vs. Deputyt Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Kerala High Court

Decided On

Case Number

O.P. No. 9179 of 1999 7 April 1999

Reported in

(1999)157CTR(Ker)280

Appellant

Charles C. George

Respondent

Deputyt Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Advocates:

K.M. V. Pandalai, for the Petitioner P.K.R. Menon, for the Respondent

Excerpt:


.....and revision petition also afresh. held: the commissioner who was bound to consider revision petition and application for condonation of delay and applied his mind before rejecting the same his order is not a speaking order. a reading of revision petition and application for condonation of delay and order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the commissioner came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. the commissioner ought to have passed a reasoned order instead of the cryptic order. hence, the impugned order is set aside and the commissioneris directed to consider revision petition and the application for condonation of delay respectively, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of assessee income tax act 1961 s.264 in the kerala high cour p.v. narayanan nambiar, j. income tax act, 1961, s. 264(3) - .....ground to condone the delay. the revision petition is rejected.'3. the second respondent who was bound to consider exts. p1 and p2 should have applied his mind before rejecting the. application for condonation of delay and consequentially, the revision petition. ext. p5 is not a speaking order. a reading of ext. p5 order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the second respondent came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. the second respondent ought to have passed a reasoned order instead of the cryptic order as is seen from ext. p5.4. hence, ext. p5 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider exts. p1 and p2-revision petition and the application for condonation of delay respectively, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,the original petition is disposed of as above.

Judgment:


P. V. Nara yanan Nambiar, J.:

Advocate Sri Ravindranatha Menon appears for respondents.

2. Petitioner filed Ext. P1 revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing Ext. Pl, copy of which is marked as Ext. P2, before the 2nd respondent, Exts. P1 and P2 were considered together by the second respondent who passed Ext. P5 order which reads as follows :

'The revision petition is filed out of time, I find no ground to condone the delay. The revision petition is rejected.'

3. The second respondent who was bound to consider Exts. P1 and P2 should have applied his mind before rejecting the. application for condonation of delay and consequentially, the revision petition. Ext. P5 is not a speaking order. A reading of Ext. P5 order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the second respondent came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. The second respondent ought to have passed a reasoned order instead of the cryptic order as is seen from Ext. P5.

4. Hence, Ext. P5 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider Exts. P1 and P2-revision petition and the application for condonation of delay respectively, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

The original petition is disposed of as above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //