MR. PAUL JOSEPH MANJOORAN, vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT,

PDF · subscribers
WA/496/2024HC KeralaKLHC01098327202405 April 2024Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellant was indeed given ample opportunity to respond to the show cause notices and hearing notices, as well as to file returns under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order (Ext.P7) was passed only because the appellant did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's decision, which had relegated the appellant to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order before the Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The ratio decidendi is that failure to respond to statutory notices, despite ample opportunity, disentitles an assessee from claiming a violation of natural justice in the subsequent ex-parte assessment.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Mr. Paul Joseph Manjooran, is aggrieved by a judgment dated March 19, 2024, of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.7096 of 2024. The appellant's primary contention is that the learned Single Judge should have considered his submission regarding a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically that he was not heard before the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. The assessment order (Ext.P7) was passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Department argued that the appellant was given ample opportunity to respond to show cause notices, hearing notices, and to file returns under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the appellant not being heard prior to the passing of the assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not afforded a hearing before the impugned order was passed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the appellant was provided with ample opportunities to respond to show cause notices and hearing notices, and to file returns under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed only because the appellant failed to respond to these notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WA NO. 496 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.7096 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT MR. PAUL JOSEPH MANJOORAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH P MANJOORAN, RESIDING AT 48/425 K, MANJOORAN HOUSE, RAGHAVAPILLA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM KERALA, PIN - 682026 BY ADVS. K.LATHA GAYATHRI NARENDRANATH JESSY MANUEL JOMTON F. PAYANKAN MEERA MENON RESPONDENTS 1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NAFAC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,MAYURBHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI,245-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH-STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.496 of 2024 2

JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.7096 of 2024. 2. The sole contention of the appellant against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is that the learned Judge ought to have considered the submission that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, the appellant was not heard prior to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition.

3.

We have heard Smt.K.Latha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

4.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, we find from the impugned judgment, as also the assessment order (Ext.P7) passed in terms of Section 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act that the appellant was in fact given ample opportunity to respond to the show cause notices and hearing notices as also for filing the W.A.No.496 of 2024 3 returns under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act. It is only because the appellant did not respond to the said notices issued by the Department that the assessment in Ext.P7 order came to be completed. We see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in this writ appeal whereby the appellant has been relegated to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P7 order before the Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The writ appeal therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed.

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →