M/S. UNIBIKES, vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/27202/2022HC KeralaKLHC01057548202202 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Unibikes, challenged Ext.P6 assessment order and Ext.P12 rectification order. The assessment order, passed by the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi), determined that the amounts disclosed as deposited in certain banks were incorrect. The petitioner obtained bank certificates confirming the actual deposit amounts and filed a rectification application. This application was rejected by the 1st respondent (Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Tirur) via Ext.P12. The petitioner argued that the factual discrepancy regarding the deposit amounts, which amounted to over Rs. 21 Crore, was not properly considered. The petitioner provided bank certificates as evidence. The High Court noted the significant difference in deposit amounts and the need for detailed scrutiny.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a detailed scrutiny of the matter was required, particularly given the significant difference of over Rs. 21 Crore between the amounts stated in the assessment order and the amounts confirmed by the bank certificates. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P6 (assessment order) and Ext.P12 (rectification order). The 2nd respondent was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard and after considering the certificates issued by the respective banks regarding the deposit amounts. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the assessment and rectification orders under its writ jurisdiction, given the factual dispute regarding bank deposit amounts? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment order (Ext.P6) and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application (Ext.P12) were erroneous as they failed to consider the actual amounts deposited in banks, as evidenced by certificates issued by the banks. - The factual discrepancy concerning the quantum of deposits, exceeding Rs. 21 Crore, warranted a detailed scrutiny which was not undertaken. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI THUR AY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 27202 OF 2022 PETITIONER: M/S. UNIBIKES, CHOLAKKAL TOWER, KIZHAKKETHALA DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM- 676519 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KUNHAHAMEDKUTTY K.M BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR676101 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 100001 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 4 AXIS BANK LTD. MALAPPURAM BRANCH, PEEKAYS ARCADE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM- 676519, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER., 5 HDFC BANK LIMITED MALAPPURAM BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, DOOR NO. 833-837, PEEKAYS ARCADE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM- 676519, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

WP(C) NO. 27202 OF 2022 2 6 ICICI BANK LTD. 1ST FLOOR, PEEKAY'S ARCADE, OPP. MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, MALAPPURAM- 676519, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT P.PAULOCHAN

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →