THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, vs. VAZHAKKULAM BLOCK RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.E-1082

In the writ petition, the challenge of the writ petitioner was to Ext.P5 order passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Aluva, in terms of Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act'] and the consequential notice [Ext.P6] issued to the writ petitioner by the said Officer under Section 148 of the IT Act proposing a re-assessment of the income for the assessment year 2019-20. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that the appellant herein proceeded to pass Ext.P5 order without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as mandated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. It was therefore contended that Ext.P5 order was vitiated on account of the non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, and consequently, Ext.P6 notice too was vitiated in law.

The learned Single Judge found that inasmuch as Section 148A of the IT Act contemplated the provision of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the non-providing of a personal hearing to the assessee vitiated the impugned orders and consequential notices. The said order and notice were therefore quashed, and the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the appellant herein on 12.12.2023 with all relevant documents in its possession for being heard. It was further made clear that if the petitioner did not appear on 12.12.2023, no further opportunity needed to be granted to it by the Income Tax Officer.

We have heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.Premjit Nagendran, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

The appellant is aggrieved only to the limited extent wherein the learned Single Judge held that personal hearing is mandatory in an enquiry under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The learned standing counsel for the appellant Sri.Jose Joseph submitted that considering the nature of the proceedings, the scheme of the statute and the language of the provisions, the assessee is not required to be given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. The question whether affording a personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory in an enquiry under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act came up for consideration recently before the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (2024 KHC OnLine 28). It was held that Section 148A of the IT Act contemplates that the assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard and that opportunity must include the right of personal hearing as well. The dictum laid down in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Appeal as devoid of merit. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp