POTTANATTU SREEDHARANNAIR BABU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7119/2025HC KeralaKLHC01016028202524 March 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS6 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 did, in fact, advert to and consider the assessee's reply. Therefore, the primary contention that the reply was not received was factually incorrect as per the Court's perusal of the order. Even if there was an erroneous consideration of facts or law in the assessment order, the Court held that the petitioner possessed an equally efficacious alternative remedy through statutory appeal. The Court also noted a typographical error in the order concerning the assessment year 2020-21, but deemed this error insufficient to warrant interference under Article 226. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies. The ratio decidendi is that where an alternative statutory remedy is available and efficacious, a writ petition under Article 226 is generally not maintainable, even if there are allegations of procedural irregularities or factual errors in the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenged an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the assessment order incorrectly stated that their response was 'not received', violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order, Ext.P10, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the impugned order could be challenged through statutory appellate proceedings and that Article 226 was not the appropriate remedy. They also submitted that the petitioner's reply was received after the due date, and any error in its consideration should be raised in appeal. The Court noted a typographical error in the order regarding the assessment year 2020-21 but found it insufficient to warrant interference under Article 226.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the statement in the assessment order that the assessee's response was 'not received' violates the principles of natural justice, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the assessment order for AY 2017-18 incorrectly stated that their response was 'not received'. This factual inaccuracy, they contended, violated the principles of natural justice, as their reply had indeed been filed. They sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal against the assessment order. They further submitted that the petitioner's reply was received after the due date and that any error in its consideration should be agitated before the appellate authority. They contended that interference under Article 226 was not warranted.

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. 7119 OF 2025

WP(C)2986/2025

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

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 PETITIONER : *

* POTTANATTU SREEDHARANNAIR BABU, AGED 58 YEARS, C/O.HAMEED P PERINKADAKKATT HOUSE, PAINGOTTUR CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CHELEMBRA, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM, KERALA -673 635 [MOHAMMED ANAS K.P., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, KALATHIL PARAMBIL, KALATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KADAVANAD, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 679 586] (NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.02.2025 IN I.A.01/2025 IN WP(C)2986/2025) POTTANATTU SREEDHARANNAIR BABU, AGED 58 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MAHALAKSHMI PACKERS, MARATHAKKARA P O; THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 036 (THE ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 24-03-2025 IN WPC 7119/2025) BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS : 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 ASSISTANT/ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - 1(1)(2), (NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRAL), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26206 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE RANGE 1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682018 4 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 110 001 BY SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS, SC BY SRI.P.G. JAYASHANKAR, SENIOR SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26206 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C).No.7119 of 2025 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for the assessment year 2017- 2018. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act and challenges Ext.P10 order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. According to the petitioner, the response filed by the assessee is referred in Ext.P10 'as not received' as is evident from the tabular column in the assessment order, which is incorrect and hence the principles of natural justice stands violated, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Standing Counsel, however pointed out that the impugned order can be challenged in an appellate proceeding as per statute and no cause arises for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the reply of the petitioner was received after the due date, while the reply received on 19.10.2024 had been specifically perused and if there is any error in its consideration, it has to be agitated in appeal.

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26206

On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court notices that the reply of the assessee has been specifically adverted to and even considered. If there is an erroneous consideration of facts or even law, the remedy of the petitioner is to agitate it before the appellate authority. Of course in the impugned order which relates to the assessment year 2017-18, there is an observation that the assessee had not filed the return for the assessment year 2020-21. The said typographical error by itself, cannot render the entire order liable for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has an equally efficacious, alternative remedy before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies, in accordance with law. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26206 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7119/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27.03.2024 ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR AY:2017-18, BY 1ST RESPONDENT, IN DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE RETURNS WITHIN 91 DAYS. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 ISSUED U/S.148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR AY:2017-18, BY 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH EXT P1 NOTICE. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 13.06.2024 FOR AY:2017-18, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH PROOF OF PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX DUE AS PER THE RETURN. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE NOTICE DATED 30.07.2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, U/S.142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR AY:2017-18. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

NO.620317011191024, AGAINST RESPONSE MADE AGAINST EXT P4. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

NO.620300991191024, AGAINST RESPONSE MADE AGAINST NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF IT ACT, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE NOTICE DATED 08.10.2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY:2017-18, U/S.142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR AY:2017-18. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.619989951191024, ALONG WITH REPLY, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER DETAILS SOUGHT FOR IN EXT P7 NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY: 2017-18.

WP(C) NO. 7119 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26206 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY:2017-18,

MECHANICALLY,

WITHOUT CONSIDERING MANY OF THE CONTENTIONS IN EXT P8. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY:2017-18, AS IF, NO RESPONSE FILED BY PETITIONER TO THE NOTICES. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.02.2025, PROPOSING PENALTY U/S.274 READ WITH 272(1) (D) OF IT ACT, ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT P10 ASSESSMENT ORDER. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO.11456 OF 2022, PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN DIRECTING TO PASS FRESH ORDERS AFTER FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES CONTEMPLATED U/S.148A(B) OF IT ACT, AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEING HEARD. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF REPORTED DECISION PASSED BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2009-2011 OF 2003 IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD; IN HOLDING THAT IN RE-ASSESSMENT MADE TOWARDS REASON TO BELIEVE, ESCAPED INCOME, THERE MUST BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL FOR THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →