ASAMANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.317., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 ,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the phrase 'opportunity of being heard' in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be construed as an opportunity for personal hearing. The Court found no substance in the Revenue's submission that filing a reply to a show cause notice suffices as an opportunity of being heard. It was admitted that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order (Ext.P5) and issuing the notice (Ext.P6). Consequently, the Court found the order and notice unsustainable and set them aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on or before October 27, 2023, with relevant documents for a personal hearing. The assessing officer was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the submissions and then proceed with the matter. The Court clarified that no further opportunity would be granted if the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a co-operative society that provides credit facilities and receives deposits. For assessment year 2019-20, it did not file a return, believing it had no taxable income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under Section 148A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on January 27, 2023, indicating potential escaped assessment. The petitioner submitted a reply on February 1, 2023. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, requiring a reply by March 10, 2023. The petitioner filed a reply to this notice as well. The petitioner's grievance is that an order under Section 148A(d) (Ext.P5) and a notice under Section 148 (Ext.P6) were issued without affording a mandatory personal hearing, violating Section 148A(b).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 are liable to be set aside for violation of the mandatory opportunity of being heard as stipulated in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 148A(b) mandates a personal hearing, and the passing of the order (Ext.P5) and issuance of the notice (Ext.P6) without such a hearing is a violation of the law, rendering them liable to be set aside. Revenue's contention: The respondent contended that 'being heard' under Section 148A(b) does not necessarily imply a personal hearing, and the opportunity provided to the petitioner, other than a personal hearing, was sufficient as per the prescribed manner under the section. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148A(a),Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148
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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 25TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 12595 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ASAMANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.317., ASAMANNOR, ERNAKULAM -683549 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KIRAN P. ASHOK. BY ADV PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , ALUVA , PIN- 683101. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Dated this the 17th day of October, 2023 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 notice.
The petitioner is a Co-operative society who provides credit facilities to its members and receive deposits from them. According to the petitioner, for the assessment year 2019-20, they did not have any taxable income under the Income Tax Act and they did not file return for the said assessment year. The Income Tax Officer has issued a notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act dated 27.01.2023 to the petitioner stating that the details of the information of the enquiry conducted on which reliance has beenplaced along with the documents enclosed in the notice suggest that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment and therefore, the petitioner was required to so far as vide impugned notice in Ext.P5 notice under Section 148A(a) Income Tax Act should not be issued. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the notice along with the supporting documents, if any. The petitioner submitted the reply to the said show cause notice on 01.02.2023. Thereafter, notice under Section 148(A)(b) was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued. The petitioner was required to file reply to the said notice on or before 10.03.2023. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice issued under Section 148(A)(b) in Ext.P4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without affording an opportunity of being heard mandated under Section 148A(d), an order dated 28.03.2023 produced as Ext.P5 has been passed, and after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, the assessing authority issued Ext.P6 notice under Section 148 to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when Section 148A(b) mandates that a personal hearing and without an opportunity of being heard, the order in Ext.P5 is in violation of Section 148A(b)
therefore, ExtP5 order and Ext.P6 notice under Section 148 are against the law and liable to be set aside.
Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that ‘being heard’ does not mean that personal hearing is to be afforded to an assessee under Section 148A(b). The manner in which the petitioner is to be heard is prescribed under Section 148 A(b). The petitioner was given an opportunity as provided under Section 148A(b) except for hearing which is not mandatory. Therefore, he submitted that this Court need not interfere with Ext.P5 impugned order and Ext.P6 impugned notice and the writ petition may be dismissed.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the documents.
Heading of Section 148A itself provides conducting of enquiry, providing opportunity before issuance of notice under Section 148. Section148A(b) reads as under:
“Provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than 7 days and but not exceeding 30 days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice u/s 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income dischargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any as per clause (a)”
Section 148A(b) begins with “provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee”. Hearing does not mean filing reply to the show cause notice. If the provision of this Section contemplates opportunity of being heard that has to be construed as personal hearing. Therefore, I do not find substance in the submission of learned Standing Counsel that an opportunity of being heard to the assessee contemplated under Section 148A(b) does not necessarily mean personal hearing. In my view, opportunity of being heard means an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.
Admittedly, no such opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before passing Ext.P5 order and issuing Ext.P6 notice. I find Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 notice are unsustainable. Therefore, the same are set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on or before 27.10.2023 with all the relevant document in his possession of being heard. After considering the submission of the assessee, the assessing officer is required to pass a fresh order, and thereafter, proceed with the matter. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on 27.10.2023, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for hearing. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026