KODAKKADAN HAMJADALI, vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned assessment orders dated March 23, 2022, were vitiated because the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity to file his responses/replies. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner was not communicated any order declining his requests for time until March 24, 2022, to file his replies. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside. The petitioner was granted a period of fifteen days to file his response to the show cause notices/pre-assessment notices dated March 4, 2022/March 17, 2022. The Court clarified that no further opportunity would be granted. If the petitioner filed the replies within the stipulated time, fresh assessment orders would be passed in accordance with the law. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kodakkadan Hamjadali, filed four writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated March 23, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. These orders pertained to assessment years 2015-16, 2017-18, 2014-15, and 2016-17. For assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the petitioner received pre-assessment notices on March 4, 2022, and requested time until March 24, 2022, to respond. Similarly, for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, notices under Section 142(1) were received on March 4, 2022, with a similar request for time until March 24, 2022. The petitioner claims these requests were not considered, and subsequent show cause notices dated March 17, 2022, were issued, to which no replies were filed, leading to the final assessment orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before the finalisation of assessment orders dated March 23, 2022, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice, in light of the petitioner's request for time to file responses to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that he had a reasonable belief that his requests for time until March 24, 2022, to file responses were accepted, as no communication rejecting these requests was received. Consequently, he did not file his responses to the show cause/pre-assessment notices. This led to a violation of natural justice and vitiated the assessment orders. The revenue contended that the petitioner had been issued numerous notices but failed to respond to any. While the petitioner sought time until March 24, 2022, for notices dated March 4, 2022, these requests were not considered, and subsequent show cause notices dated March 17, 2022, were issued. The petitioner ought to have filed replies to these pre-assessment notices but failed to do so, resulting in the finalisation of assessment orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T [WP(C) Nos.11434, 11477, 11496 & 11501 of 2022] These writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner impugning the assessment orders dated 23.3.2022 issued under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16, 2017-18, 2014-15 and 2016-17, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the petitioner was served with show cause notices/pre-assessment notices dated 4.3.2022. Petitioner sought time till 24.3.2022 to file his responses/replies to the said show cause notices. Similarly for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 also, on receipt of notices dated 4.3.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner sought time up to 24.3.2022 to file his responses/replies. However, it appears that the said requests were not considered and in the meantime, show cause notices/pre-assessment
WP(C) NO. 11434 OF 2022 6 notices dated 17.3.2022 were issued to the petitioner for the said assessment years. The petitioner did not file his replies/responses to the said show cause notices/pre-assessment notices. Therefore, final assessment orders came to be passed on 23.3.2022 for the four assessment years, i.e., 2014-15 to 2017-18. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had the reasonable belief that his requests for time up to 24.3.2022 to file his responses/replies have been accepted as he did not receive any communication rejecting the requests and, therefore, he did not file his response to the said show causes/pre-assessment notices. Therefore, the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before finalisation of the assessment orders dated 23.3.2022 and there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned assessment orders are vitiated to that extent.
On the other hand, Smt.Susie B.Varghese, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax
WP(C) NO. 11434 OF 2022 7 Department, has submitted that the petitioner was issued numerous notices, but he never came forward to reply any of the notices issued and that only in respect of the notices dated 4.3.2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, the petitioner sought time for filing response/reply till 24.3.2022. However, the said requests were not considered and show cause notices/pre-assessment notices dated 17.3.2022 were issued. On receipt of the pre-assessment notices, the petitioner ought to have filed his replies. However, he did not file any reply and, therefore, the assessment orders have been finalised.
I have considered the submissions and perused the paper books.
Admittedly, the petitioner was not communicated any order declining his requests seeking time up to 24.3.2022 to file his replies to the notices.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the impugned assessment orders dated 23.3.2022 have been vitiated as the petitioner was WP(C) NO. 11434 OF 2022 8 not afforded adequate opportunity for filing his responses/replies. Thus, the impugned assessment orders, Ext.P8 in WP(C) Nos.11434 & 11496 of 2022 and Ext.P9 in WP(C) Nos.11477 & 11501 of 2022 are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file his response within a period of fifteen (15) days to the show cause notices/pre-assessment notices dated 4.3.2022/17.3.2022. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner files reply to the show cause notices/pre-assessment notices as above, the same shall be considered and fresh assessment orders shall be passed, in accordance with law. The present writ petitions stand finally disposed of as above. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petitions stands dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE jg
WP(C) NO. 11434 OF 2022 9
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- 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