KUNHI PURAYIL ARAVINDHAKSHAN vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30550/2023HC KeralaKLHC01067444202319 September 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the assessment order. The court found that the petitioner's submission that he was not given an opportunity to represent his case was unfounded, as the assessment order clearly stated that several opportunities were afforded to the petitioner, but he failed to respond to the notices. The court observed that the assessment order did not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error on the face of the record, considering the facts narrated therein and the petitioner's non-cooperation. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue any other remedy available to him under the law against the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kunhi Purayil Aravindhakshan, is the assessee, and the respondents are the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Union of India. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The writ petition challenges the assessment order and a penalty notice dated March 2, 2023, issued by the AO. The petitioner failed to file his income tax return for AY 2018-19. His case was selected for scrutiny under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to significant transactions reported against his PAN, including a cash deposit of Rs. 1,86,07,940/- during the financial year 2017-18. Despite multiple notices under Section 142(1) and seven further opportunities, the petitioner did not comply. He eventually filed a return of income on April 29, 2022, in response to a notice under Section 148, disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,44,046/- on purchases and sales of Rs. 1,70,89,084/- and Rs. 1,73,74,550/- respectively. Information sought from the petitioner's bank under Section 133(6) was not received by the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the assessment order and penalty notice when the petitioner failed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings and respond to multiple notices, thereby not providing necessary information to the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent his case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record separate contentions for the revenue beyond what is implied by the AO's actions and the court's findings. However, the court's reasoning addresses the petitioner's submission by referring to the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 133(6),Section 271AAC

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 MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30550 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: KUNHI PURAYIL ARAVINDHAKSHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O KOTHANKANDATHILKUNHIKANAN, ERINHIKEEL HOUSE ACHAMTHURUTHI, CHERUVATHUR, KASARGOD, PIN - 671351 BY ADVS. PRAVEEN.H. G.HARIHARAN K.S.SMITHA T.T.SHANIBA AMAL DEV D SNEHA M.S. ABHIJITH E.R. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671123 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 BY CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC IT DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.30550/2023 -2-

J U D G M E N T

Heard Ms K S Smitha learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Christopher Abraham for the respondents.

2.

The present writ petition is filed impugning the assessment order, and the penalty notice dated 02.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner did not file the return of his income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. On verification of the income tax database, it was observed that the assessee has not filed the income tax return in spite of the huge amount of transactions reported against his PAN. The petitioner had deposited cash of Rs.1,86,07,940/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19. -3-

3.

During the course of assessment proceedings, notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 13.09.2022 and 10.01.2023 were issued to the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid notices, the petitioner/assessee failed to submit any compliance within the date of finalisation of the assessment. Thereafter seven more opportunities were given to the petitioner/assessee on different dates, which are taken note of in the Assessment Order. But, the petitioner did not respond to the said notices. Only in response to notice under Section 148, the petitioner had filed his return of income on 29.04.2022 and disclosed a total income of Rs.3,44,046/- on purchase and sales of Rs.1,70,89,084/- and Rs.1,73,74,550/- respectively.

3.

1 Relevant information was gathered by the Income Tax Department from the Bank of the petitioner. On verification of the e-filing portal, it was found that the assessee had a bank current account bearing Account -4-

No.672201010050042 and Saving Account No.072202010003247 maintained in the Union Bank of India. Accordingly, the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, was issued a letter under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 05.01.2023 calling for information. However, till the date of finalisation of the assessment, no bank statement was received from the Bank. As the assessee did not furnish relevant information, the Faceless Assessment Officer, having no option left, had to rely on the information as available in hand and in the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Considering these facts and the non-cooperation of the petitioner despite several notices having been sent to him, the assessment was finalised on the disclosed income of Rs.1,86,07,940/- and penalty proceedings under Section 271 AAC of the Income Tax Act 1961 have been issued.

5.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent the -5-

case. However, the said submission falls on the ground, considering that in the Assessment Order, it has been said that several opportunity were afforded to the petitioner, but he failed to give any response to the notices. Considering the facts as narrated in the Assessment Order, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Assessment Order, which does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error on the face of the record.

Thus, this writ petition fails, which is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner may take recourse to any other remedy available to him under the law against the Assessment Order. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE jjj -6-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30550/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 24/03/2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 31/03/2022 UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX HAS FOUND THAT ACT, 1961 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R/W144 R/W 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 02/03/2023 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 02/03/2023 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2022

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →