SHRI. MOHAMMED NOUSHAD, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13318/2023HC KeralaKLHC01029065202309 January 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the phrase 'provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee' in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act implies an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court noted that in the present case, no such personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and notice, and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority. The petitioner was directed to appear before the ITO on or before January 15, 2024, with relevant records for a personal hearing. The assessing authority is to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) after considering the petitioner's submissions. The Court clarified that no further opportunity would be granted if the petitioner fails to appear on the specified date.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Mohammed Noushad, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, failed to file his income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Wayanad, issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice. However, the ITO passed an order under Section 148A(d) without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The petitioner challenged this order and a subsequent notice (Ext.P5 and Ext.P6) through a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the phrase 'provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee' in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act necessitates a personal hearing before passing an order under Section 148A(d)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order (Ext.P5) was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard, specifically a personal hearing, which is mandatory. The assessee relied on the High Court's judgment in W.P.(C.) No.12595 of 2023. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 19TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 13318 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SHRI. MOHAMMED NOUSHAD, AGED 39 YEARS EDAKKARAKATH HOUSE, EDAPPAL VIA, VATTAMKULAM P.O, MALAPPURAM - 679578 KERALA. BY ADV V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAYOS, SULTHAN BATHERY ROAD, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD- 673 122 KERALA. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S. PRESS ROAD, C R BUILDING, KACHERIPADY, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM OTHER PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of January, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed impugning the Ext.P5 order dated 30.03.2023 and Ext.P6 notice of the same date, issued by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2016-

17.2.

The petitioner an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act has not filed the return of his income for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, to which the petitioner submitted reply. However, without affording an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order in Ext.P5 under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act has been passed.

3.

The issue that personal hearing is required before passing an order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 17.10.2023 falls under W.P.(C.) No.12595 of 2023. In the said judgment, it has been held that in Section 148A(b) the phrase, “provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee” would mean an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. In the present case, no such hearing was afforded before the impugned order in Ext.P5 has been passed.

4.

In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the assessing authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on or before 15.01.2024, with all the relevant records/evidence in his possession of being heard. After considering the submission of the assessee, the assessing authority is required to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) and thereafter proceed with the matter. It is made clear that, if the petitioner does not appear on 15.01.2014 before the 1st respondent, no more further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for being heard. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13318/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2023 FOR AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148A (B) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 09.03.2023 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16.03.2023 GRANTING TIME FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO FILE THE REPLY EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 21.03.2023 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148A (D) OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2023 FOR AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2023 FOR AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN STATEMENT AND THAT OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 86/2023 DATED 03-01-2023 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT ( ABDUL MAJEED SON OF SHRI. ALI MOHAMMED VS. INCOME TSC OFFICER) DATED 29-06-2022 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (MAJESTIC HANDICRAFT PVT LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) DATED 27-03-2023 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NARESH BALACHANDRA RAO SHINDE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5(3) NAGPUR, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NAGPUR) DATED 26-09-2022 REPORTED IN 2022 TAXCORP (DT) 88199 (HC-BOMBAY) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSHUL JAIN V PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER , 449 ITR 256 (SC) EXHIBIT R1 (B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSHUL JAIN V.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ,449 ITR 251 (P AND H) EXHIBIT R1(C) JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.37527/2022 IN THE CASE OF M/S VISWABHARATHI MEDICALS V INCOME TAX OFFICER

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →