MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/9406/2024HC KeralaKLHC01089720202404 June 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellate order (Ext.P4) was indeed passed without proper notice to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that no notice was sent to the email ID provided by them in Form No. 35. The revenue's contention that notices were sent to the email ID provided in Form No. 35 was found to be factually incorrect, as the email ID used by the revenue ('crgkitr@yahoo.in') differed from the one provided by the petitioner ('crgk1070@gmail.com'). Consequently, the Ext.P4 appellate order was set aside. The Court directed the 4th respondent (NFAC) to reconsider the appeal (Ext.P2) after issuing due notice to the petitioner at the correct email ID specified in Ext.P2. The appeal is to be disposed of within three months of the fresh notice. No coercive steps are to be taken pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muttathara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order (Ext.P4) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution for failure to appear, despite notices issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that they never received these notices on their primary, secondary, or specified email addresses. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013, and the disputed order is the assessment order (Ext.P1). The procedural history involves the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution and the subsequent filing of this writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order (Ext.P4) passed by the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for being passed without affording the petitioner due notice, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that they did not receive any notices regarding the appeal proceedings, either on their primary email, secondary email, or the email address provided in Form No. 35 (Ext.P2). Therefore, the appellate order was passed in violation of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The 4th respondent, in their statement, asserted that notices were sent to the email ID provided in Form No. 35 under 'Personal Information'. They produced a chart detailing the notices sent. However, it was revealed that the notices were sent to 'crgkitr@yahoo.in' while the petitioner had provided 'crgk1070@gmail.com' in Form No. 35.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 9406 OF 2024

TC 42/94

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9406 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TC 42/942(1), MUTTATHARA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NIRMAL V, PIN – 695 008. BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP T.T.BIJU T.THASMI M.J.ANOOPA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN – 110 001. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 3 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN – 110 003. 4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN – 110 003. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SRI. P.R.AJITH KUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.9406 OF 2024 2

JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed against Ext.P4 order in appeal passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), challenging Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013. The appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear pursuant to notices issued under Section 250 of the Act. According to the petitioner, they have not received any of the notices referred to in Ext.P4 either in the primary email Id or in the secondary email Id or in the email Id mentioned in Ext.P2 Form No.

35.

Accordingly, the petitioner prays to set aside Ext.P4 appellate order being one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

WP(C).No.9406 OF 2024 3

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that, the notices have been sent to the email Id given in Ext.P2 Form No.35 under ‘Personal Information’. A chart has also been produced showing the details of the notices sent to the petitioner. From the statement, it is seen that the notices have been sent to the email Id crgkitr@yahoo.in whereas the email Id provided by the petitioner in Ext.P2 Form No.35 is crgk1070@gmail.com. Thus, it is evident that no notice has been sent to the email Id given by the petitioner in Form No.

35.

I agree with the submission of the petitioner that, Ext.P4 order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal after due notice to the petitioner in the email Id shown in Ext.P2. The appeal shall be WP(C).No.9406 OF 2024 4 disposed of within a period of three months from the date of issuance of fresh notice to the petitioner. Till such time, there shall not be any coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.9406 OF 2024 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER’ S EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO AAAAM7055N/2012-13 DATED 18-12-2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21-01-2020 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO PAN AAAAM7055N/2012-13 DATED 18-12-2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-01-2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-2-2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT S ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE R4(a) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT .IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN. ANNEXURE R4(b) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT .IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN. ANNEXURE R4(c) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT .IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN WITH COPY TO ADV PRADEEP KP ADVPRADEEPKP@GMAIL.COM. ANNEXURE R4(d) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT .IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN WITH COPY TO ADV PRADEEP KP ADVPRADEEPKP@GMAIL.COM. ANNEXURE R4(e) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN WITH COPY TO ADV PRADEEP KP ADVPRADEEPKP@GMAIL.COM. ANNEXURE R4(f) SCREENSHOT EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT .IN E-MAIL ID CRGKITR@YAHOO.IN.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →