TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was served upon the assessee along with a demand notice, in January, 2007. Thereafter, the matter was kept ignored by the 1st petitioner/assessee till 2011. Even though a fresh copy of Ext.P5(a) was served at the request of the assessee in the year 2011 itself, the above writ petition was filed only in the year 2013, when the sale proclamation notice was received pursuant to the recovery steps initiated. Therefore the learned Singe Judge was perfectly justified in declining interference. Neither the assessee(deceased 1st writ petitioner) nor the appellants herein, who were the legal heirs impleaded in the writ petition, had taken any attempt to challenge the consequential assessment by availing the statutory remedy of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abdul Rehim, J. Legal heirs of deceased 1st writ petitioner, who were the writ petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.11199/2013, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 19th December, 2019. Respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. Against Ext.P2 order of assessment finalised against the deceased 1st writ petitioner, with respect to the assessment year 1999 2000, he filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By virtue of Ext.P3 order passed in that revision petition, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority for passing fresh assessment order, after giving copi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had received on 03.01.2007. Therefore the learned Single Judge had refused to interfere with Ext.P5(a) order of assessment, by observing that the challenge is made at a highly belated stage. It was categorically found that, various adjournments were given by the Assessing Officer after remand of the matter through Ext.P3 order, and the assessee had not cooperated with the proceedings; nor had he taken any steps to cross examine the loan creditors, despite furnishing of the cash flow statement and other materials to him. Hence the Single Judge found that there exists no illegality or perversity vitiating the order of assessment, justifying any interference at this highly belated point of time. Consequentially the writ petition was dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either the assessee(deceased 1st writ petitioner) nor the appellants herein, who were the legal heirs impleaded in the writ petition, had taken any attempt to challenge the consequential assessment by availing the statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore there is every justification on the part of this court in refusing interference with the recovery proceedings initiated. This is more so, because the petitioners have failed in their contention that there was lack of service of proper demand notice. Hence we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that, the observations contained in the impugned judgment may stand in thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
