VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/39862/2023HC KeralaKLHC01089565202301 December 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that if an appellate authority fails to consider one or more grounds taken by the assessee, the order passed by the appellate authority does not automatically become bad in law. The Court stated that the petitioner has a remedy to file a further appeal against the orders and can raise all grounds previously taken before the first appellate authority, as well as additional grounds. The Court found that for the mere non-consideration of one or more grounds by the first appellate authority, the High Court could not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed wholly misconceived and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging orders passed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the NFAC, acting as the first appellate authority, failed to consider all the grounds raised by the assessee. The petitioner sought a remand of the matter back to the NFAC for a re-consideration of these grounds against the assessment orders. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the NFAC, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Kerala).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, under its writ jurisdiction (Article 226 of the Constitution of India), can exercise judicial review for the non-consideration of one or more grounds by the first appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the first appellate authority (NFAC) did not consider all the grounds taken by the assessee, and therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the NFAC for re-consideration of these grounds against the assessment orders. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds stated by the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39862 OF 2023 PETITIONER: VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 9/283, NELLAYA, CHERUPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. ASHRAFALI. P, PIN – 679335 BY ADV. V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-, PIN – 678014 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPELLATE CENTRE MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (NFAC), PIN – 110001 3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (KERALA) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C.) No.39862/2023 2

JUDGMENT The present writ petition has been filed impugning the orders in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 passed by the second respondent under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first appellate authority has not considered all the groundS taken by the petitioner assessee and therefore, this Court may remand back the matter to the first appellate authority to re-consider the grounds taken by the petitioner assessee against the assessment orders in Exts.P1 to P3. 2. If the appellate authority has not considered one or more grounds taken by the assessee, the order passed by the first appellate authority does not become bad in law. The petitioner has a remedy to file appeal against the orders and may take all the grounds taken before the first appellate authority as well as additional grounds. However, for non-consideration of one or more grounds by the first appellate authority, this Court could not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find this writ petition wholly misconceive and accordingly, it is dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE DCS/01.12.2023

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 20.12.2016 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2015- 16 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE DATED 29.11.2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.09.2023 IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2014-15, DATED 31.10.2023 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 10.10.2023 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2015-16, DATED 31.10.2023 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO. 753/2021 DATED 28.06.2021 IN THE CASE OF M/S POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER W.P.(C.) No.39862/2023 5 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS ITO IN W.P (C ) NO. 16614/2022 DATED 25.05.2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →