BASHEER P.N.O. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16411/2023HC KeralaKLHC01035603202324 May 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the 48-hour time period fixed by the respondent in Ext. P1 notice was too short for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the Court found it necessary to grant the petitioner an extension of time. The Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed the respondent to accept the petitioner's reply, if filed with supporting materials, within one month from May 16, 2023. The respondent was further directed to consider and finalize the Ext. P1 show cause notice after considering the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basheer P.N.O., proprietor of M/s. P.K.L Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was facing assessment proceedings initiated by the respondent, the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. The respondent issued a show cause notice (Ext. P1) on May 15, 2023, requiring the petitioner to respond within 48 hours regarding alleged variations to his returned income. The petitioner contended that this 48-hour period was unreasonable and arbitrary. He also stated that the respondent's web portal was closed when he attempted to file a reply seeking an extension of time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 48-hour time period granted by the respondent in Ext. P1 notice to show cause is unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjustifiable, thereby violating the petitioner's right to a fair hearing? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that the 48-hour notice period was insufficient for him to prepare and file a comprehensive reply with supporting materials to substantiate his defence against the alleged variations in his income. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to grant him two months' time from May 15, 2023, to file his objections. The respondent, represented by its counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for extension of time in the judgment. The Court considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16411 OF 2023 PETITIONER: BASHEER P.N.O. AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED ALI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. P.K.L TRADERS, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673637 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 16411 OF 2023 2 C.S.DIAS, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16411 of 2023 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to grant the petitioner two months time from 15.05.2023 to file his objection to Ext.P1 notice. 2. The petitioner's case is that, assessment steps have been taken against the petitioner by the respondent, alleging variation to the returned income. The respondent has issued Ext.P1 notice on 15.05.2023, directing the petitioner to show cause within 48 hours, why action should not be taken against him. Even though the petitioner was proposing to file a reply to Ext.P1 seeking enlargement of time, the web portal of the respondent was closed. The time period fixed by the respondent in Ext.P1 is unreasonable, arbitrary and

WP(C) NO. 16411 OF 2023 3 unjustifiable. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard: Sri. Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking into account the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the 48 hours time period fixed by the respondent in Ext.P1 is too short a period for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, I am of the view that the petitioner has to be granted at least one month's time from 16.05.2023 to submit his reply with materials. Resultantly, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I dispose of the writ petition as follows:- (i) The respondent shall accept the reply if any filed by the petitioner with supporting materials, if filed within one month from 16.05.2023.

WP(C) NO. 16411 OF 2023 4 (ii) The respondent shall consider and finalise Ext.P1 show cause notice after adverting to the reply filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE LEK

WP(C) NO. 16411 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16411/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DTD. 15-05-2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11525/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 01-03-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →