THIRUKOCHI MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER’S CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.E-1303, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the opportunity of personal hearing is explicit in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was not disputed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order (Ext.P6) was passed. Consequently, the Court found that Ext.P6 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to pass fresh orders pursuant to Ext.P4 notice after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thirukochi Motor Vehicle Owner's Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order (Ext.P6) passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that this order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The order in question was issued on March 27, 2023, following a notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 2, 2023, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply on March 14, 2023. The Income Tax Officer is the revenue authority, and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but relate to escaped income assessment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order (Ext.P6) passed by the 1st respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. The petitioner relied on the explicit provision within Section 148A(b) itself regarding the opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 14779 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: THIRUKOCHI MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.E-1303, AGED 39 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GEETHU CYRIAC, AGED 39 YEARS, OFFICE AT POTHENS BUILDING, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,- 682301 BY ADVS. S.SAJU A.V.SAJAN ANJANADEVI.G SWETHA.S. NAINA FAHIMATH M.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ( NON CORP WARD-1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682018 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 6TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWER,M.G ROAD, KARIKKAMURI, SHENOYS, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM -682011 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2 WPC 14779/2023 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 1st respondent under Section 148 A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contending that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the said order. 2. Section 148 A (b) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:- “Provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 1[xxxx] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);
3 WPC 14779/2023 3. Opportunity of personal hearing is explicit in Section 148 A (b) of the Act. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is set aside, being one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders pursuant to Ext.P4 notice after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-.
4 WPC 14779/2023 APPEND
IX OF WP(C) 14779/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR
(GENERAL)
CO- OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
DATED 09.07.2015 Exhibit P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPROVED BY-LAWS DATED 09.07.2015 WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRUKOCHI MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S
CREDIT
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Exhibit P-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE OF THE YEAR 2018-2019 WITH RESPECT TO THIRUKOCHI MOTOR VEHICLE
OWNER'S
CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ISSUED BY ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ( AUDIT) DATED 31.10.2019 Exhibit P-4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.148A ( B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.03.2023 Exhibit P-5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.03.2023
SUBMITTED
THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT-P4 NOTICE Exhibit P-6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 148 A (D) OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 DATED 27.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT
More judgments on Section 148A(b)
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Mittal Alloy Castings Co., Raigarh vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), BilaspurITA 685/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Farman Sk, Malda vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), MaldaITA 3001/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Pramila Satyanarayan Bhandari, Surat vs DCIT, Circle-1(3), SuratITA 22/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026