KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

WP(C)/29943/2022HC KeralaKLHC01063627202218 January 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamaludheen Fathima, filed two writ petitions challenging orders related to assessment year 2017-2018. WP(C) No. 29943/2022 challenged an order of assessment (Ext.P1). WP(C) No. 378/2023 challenged an order rectifying the assessment order, along with penalty orders (Exts.P2 and P3). The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside due to insufficient opportunity to participate in proceedings, citing illness as the reason for not responding to notices from the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner also contended that the rectification order was issued by an authority different from the one that issued the initial assessment order, rendering the rectification proceedings invalid. The respondent department argued that there was no violation of natural justice, as the petitioner failed to respond to notices. They asserted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal and that the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no grounds were made out to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice, stating that the petitioner's failure to respond to notices, even if due to illness, did not by itself render the proceedings violative of natural justice. The Court agreed with the revenue that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the orders of assessment, rectification, and penalty. Therefore, the Court saw no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction. However, recognizing that the provisions for appeal do not prescribe a maximum period for condonation of delay, the Court directed that if the petitioner files appeals along with applications for condonation of delay before the National Faceless Appeal Centre within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the delay shall be condoned, and the appeals shall be considered on merits. The judgment clarified that failure to file the appeals within the stipulated time would result in the petitioner losing the benefit of this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order for assessment year 2017-2018, issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically due to the petitioner's alleged lack of sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings on account of illness? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the rectification order for assessment year 2017-2018, issued by an authority different from the original assessing authority, is bad in law? (Question of law, concerning the validity of rectification proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the petitioner did not get a sufficient opportunity to take part in the proceedings. - The petitioner was suffering from various illnesses and could not respond to notices. - The rectification order was issued by an authority different from the one that issued the initial assessment order, making the rectification proceedings bad in law. Revenue's Contentions: - There is no violation of principles of natural justice. - The petitioner failed to respond to notices, which is not a ground for interference under Article 226. - The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 29943 OF 2022
WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2023

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WP(C) NO. 29943 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA AGED 42 YEARS NALAKATH PARAMBIL, PAVARATTY, MARUTHAYOOR P.O., WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680582 BY ADVS. V.P.NARAYANAN ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, CITY PLAZA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN - 680101 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA AGED 42 YEARS NALAKATHPARAMBIL, PAVARATTY, MAUTHAYOOR PO, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680582 BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER

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 →