Kerala High Court
Mustafa Usman Aged 79 Years vs The Income Tax Officer
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 7734 of 2013 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
MUSTAFA USMAN AGED 79 YEARS
'AYSHA', ANELA ROAD, KOYILANDY
BY P.A.HOLDER, SRI.USMAN ABOOBACKER.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH
SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA
KOZHIKODE-673001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-03-2013, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos. 7735 & 7736/13, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.7734/13
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DT 20.8.2007.
EXT.P2: COPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S 27(1)(C) DATED 27.6.12.
EXT.P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 PENALTY ORDER.
EXT.P4: COPY OF NOTICE U/S 22(1) OF THE IT ACT DT.27.9.12.
EXT.P5: COPY OF STAY PETITION DT 15.10.12.
EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER ON EXT.P5 APPLICATION PASSED BY
THIRD RESPONDENT DT 18.2.13.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NOs. 7734, 7735 & 7736 OF 2013
=============================
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. In these writ petitions, Ext.P6 orders passed by the 3rd respondent are under challenge. By these orders, stay of collection of penalty levied on the petitioners pending disposal of their appeals have been declined mainly on the ground of the incompetence of the counsel for the petitioners to represent them in the appeals. The reason stated is that the counsel had clarified that he never met the appellants and that he was not aware of their whereabouts.
3. It is reiterated before this Court also that the only question that was asked by the appellate authority was whether the counsel had met the appellants, and to which, since they were represented by their Power of Attorney, answer in the negative was given and thereafter no further hearing was granted.
4. In my view, to represent a client, it is not necessary that the counsel should personally meet the appellant. This is all WPC.Nos.7734, 7735 & 7736/13 :2 : the more so, in cases where the appellants are represented by their Power of Attorney holders. Therefore, the view taken in Ext.P6 is untenable. For that reason, I set aside Ext.P6 orders.
Writ petitions are therefore disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall hear the counsel and pass fresh orders on the stay petitions, which shall be done in accordance with law.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp