CHRISTIAN AGENCY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CARD) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner did not receive any notice by electronic means, and the only notice received via registered post required a reply on the same day of receipt. Considering this, the Court was of the view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice (Ext. P5). Consequently, the impugned order (Ext. P9) and the consequential notice (Ext. P10) were set aside. The petitioner was directed to file a response to Ext. P5 within ten days from the date the first respondent permits the petitioner to upload a reply. Fresh orders are to be passed after adjudicating Ext. P5 and affording an opportunity of hearing within one month from the date of the petitioner's reply. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural irregularity in issuing a notice, which deprives the assessee of the statutorily mandated minimum response period, warrants setting aside the consequential orders and providing an opportunity for a proper response.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Christian Agency for Rural Development (CARD), filed a writ petition challenging an order (Ext. P9) and a consequential notice (Ext. P10) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievance was the lack of a proper opportunity to respond to a show cause notice (Ext. P5). The petitioner received Ext. P5 via registered post on March 30, 2022, requiring a reply on the same day. The petitioner contended that Section 148A of the Income Tax Act mandates a minimum seven-day notice period. The impugned order Ext. P9 was passed on April 1, 2022. The revenue argued that notice was issued electronically on March 23, 2022, providing sufficient time, and that the petitioner could raise all contentions, including exemption under Section 10(23C), during the reassessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, requiring a reply on the same day of receipt via registered post, violates the mandatory minimum seven-day notice period stipulated by the provision, thereby vitiating the subsequent order and notice? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner received the show cause notice (Ext. P5) via registered post on March 30, 2022, and was required to reply on the same day. - Section 148A of the Income Tax Act mandates a minimum seven-day notice period for the assessee to submit a reply. - The order (Ext. P9) was passed on April 1, 2022, and the consequential notice (Ext. P10) was issued, without affording adequate opportunity. - No notice was served by electronic means, only by registered post. Revenue's Contentions: - Notice under Section 148A was issued electronically on March 23, 2022. - Considering the electronic notice date, the petitioner was given more than seven days to respond. - The petitioner is not prejudiced and can raise all contentions, including exemption under Section 10(23C), during reassessment proceedings. - The petitioner has no cause of action to approach the High Court under Article 226 at this stage.
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 GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 15112 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: CHRISTIAN AGENCY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CARD) MARTHOMA SABHA OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REV. ABRAHAM P VARKEY. BY ADV RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).15112/22 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext. P9 order and the consequential Ext.P10 notice principally on the ground that the petitioner did not receive any proper opportunity to respond to Ext.P5 show cause notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 notice which was received by the petitioner by registered post on 30.03.2022 at about 12:30 p.m. It is submitted that going by Ext.P5, the petitioner was required to submit a reply to Ext.P5 on the same day itself. It is submitted that the provision namely Section 148A of the Income Tax Act requires that a minimum seven days' notice be given to enable an assessee to submit his reply. It is submitted that Ext.P9 order was issued on 01.04.2022 and consequently Ext.P10 notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been issued to the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department would submit that the normal mode of sending notice under section 148A is through electronic mode and as per the instructions received by him, a notice through electronic mode was issued to the petitioner on 23.03.2022. It is submitted that taking the date 23.03.2022 into consideration, the petitioner has been clearly given seven days time to respond to the notice. It is submitted that the petitioner is really not prejudiced by Ext.P9 order and it is open to him to take all contentions including the claim that it is exempted from taxation on account of the provisions contained in Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act before the
W.P(C).15112/22 3 authority when the proposed re-assessment proceedings are being completed. It is submitted that, at any rate, the petitioner has no cause of action to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that apart from the notice received by the petitioner through registered post, no notice was served on the petitioner by electronic means. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and taking note of the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any notice by electronic means and the only notice received was through registered post which required the petitioner to submit a reply on the day on which the letter was received by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to file his response to Ext.P5 show cause notice. In order to enable re- consideration of the matter, Exts.P9 and P10 will stand set side. The petitioner will file a response to Ext.P5 show cause notice within ten days from the date on which the 1st respondent permits the petitioner to upload a reply. Fresh orders shall be passed after adjudicating Ext.P5 show cause notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month from the date on which the petitioner submits a reply to Ext.P5 show cause notice as above. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE okb/22.6.22 //True copy// PS to Judge
W.P(C).15112/22 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15112/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION DATED 29.01.1980. Exhibit P1(a) TYPED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION DATED 29.01.1980. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 24.09.2021 EXTENDING THE EXEMPTION GRANTED U/S. 10(23C) IN FORM 10AC FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 TO 2026-27. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURN BY THE PARENT ORIGINATION NAMELY MALANKARA MARTHOMA SYRIAN CHURCH OF MALABAR FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2018-19. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 10 (23 C) IN FROM NO. 10BB ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE SHOWING STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS. Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF STATEMENT SHOWING CONSOLIDATED FIGURES WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE IT RETURNS OF THE PARENT ORGANIZATION FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2018-19. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.03.2022 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 A (B) OF THE ACT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT CONFIRMING THE DELIVERY OF EXT. P5 NOTICE ON THE PETITIONER DATED 30.03.2022. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DISCLOSING ALL THE DETAILS. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE E- PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 04.04.2022 TO EXT. P7.
W.P(C).15112/22 5 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 148A (D) OF THE ACT DATED 01.04.2022. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 1.4.2022 WHICH IS ON THE SAME DATE OF PASSING EXT. P9 ORDER.
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026