SRI.JANARDHANAN NARAYANAN NAIR., vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12689/2023HC KeralaKLHC01027966202312 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner has a further right of appeal to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as provided under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the High Court was of the view that it was not appropriate to interfere with the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the appellate order (Ext.P2) by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that an alternative statutory remedy was available. The dismissal was made without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue his remedies in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri.Janardhanan Narayanan Nair, filed his income tax returns on March 31, 2018. His return was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order (Ext.P1) was passed by the third respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), on December 30, 2019. The petitioner appealed this order to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12. However, by Ext.P2 order dated January 25, 2023, the appeal was dismissed without considering the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash Ext.P1 and all subsequent proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an assessment order and a subsequent appellate order when a further statutory remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are erroneous and unsustainable in law. He contended that the appellate authority (second respondent) dismissed his appeal without considering his arguments. The petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside these orders. The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, or at least the court's interpretation of the available remedies, led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 12689 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SRI.JANARDHANAN NARAYANAN NAIR., AGED 67 YEARS HOUSE NO A/4-2, SRI CHITRA NAGAR, KARAVILA ROAD, PANGODE, TRIVANDRUM 695006 PAN NO. AMLPN4343C BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695003 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, NO 762, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FLEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALURU 560095 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 12689 OF 2023 JUDGMENT Dated this the 12th day of June 2023 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 assessment order and all further proceedings pursuant to it.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that he had filed his returns on 31.3.2018 declaring his income. The return was selected for scrutiny and Ext.P1 order of assessment was passed on 30.12.19 by the third respondent. Although the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second respondent, by Ext.P2 order, the same was dismissed, that too without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P2 are erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4.

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second

WP(C) NO. 12689 OF 2023 respondent, which was subsequently dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 25.1.2023. 5. Indisputably, the petitiner has a further right of appeal to challenge Ext.P2 order before the Tribunal, as per provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not fit for this court to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2 by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes

WP(C) NO. 12689 OF 2023

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12689/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →