IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 243 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.H.RAGHAVAN, GANAPATHY VILLA, KOTTAKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADVS.MR.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH MR.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) MR.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.243/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DTD. 28.9.02 UNDER SECTION 203 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETIION DTD. 6.11.02. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.5.06 FROM THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.243 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P3 is the order in challenge. Facts of the case is that by Ext.P1 the petitioner filed an application for refund of the deposit. Along with Ext.P1 he filed Ext.P2 application for condoning the delay in filing the application. The said application has been rejected by Ext.P3. All that is stated in Ext.P3 order of the Deputy Commissioner, is that the Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent herein, has considered the petition and that as there is no sufficient and valid reason for condoning the delay in filing the application for refund, the petition is rejected. No reason, much less any valid reason, has been assigned in Ext.P3 for rejecting Exg.P1 and P2. 2. Although the Standing Counsel for the respondent referred to me the provisions contained in Section 329(2) WP(c).No.243/07 2 (c) of the Income Tax Act and contended that the application was was filed beyond the statutorily prescribed period, since such reason is not reflected in Ext.P3 order, Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing to reconsider Exts.P1 and P2, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions contained and pass speaking order in the matter. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.243/07 3