PRADEEP DAMODARAN, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16530/2022HC KeralaKLHC01033355202217 January 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the submission of the petitioner that the notice dated March 31, 2021, was beyond the period of limitation of 6 years has no substance. The Court reasoned that for the assessment year 2014-15, the 6-year limitation period would expire on March 31, 2021. Since the notice was issued on March 31, 2021, it was well within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued on the last day of the limitation period is considered within time. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pradeep Damodaran, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P14) for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary ground for the challenge was that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-opening the assessment was beyond the prescribed limitation period of 6 years. The notice was dated March 31, 2021. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur, and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021, for the assessment year 2014-15, was issued beyond the statutory limitation period of 6 years. Assessee's contention: The notice dated March 31, 2021, was issued beyond the 6-year limitation period prescribed for re-opening assessments. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue, but implicitly defends the validity of the notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16530 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: PRADEEP DAMODARAN, AGED 56 YEARS NEDUNGATT HOUSE, VARAVOOR P. O., THRISSUR - 680 585. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA OTHER PRESENT: JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.16530 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 17th day of January, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P14 assessment order on the ground that the notice under Section 148 for re-opening the assessment was issued beyond 6 years limitation prescribed under the statute. The assessment year is 2014-15. The notice is dated 31.03.2021 and therefore, this Court does not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 31.03.2021 was beyond the period of limitation of 6 years inasmuch as the 6 years limitation in respect of the assessment year 2014-15 would get expired only on 31.03.2021, and the notice was issued on 31.03.2021 and therefore, the notice was well within the time of six years, as the limitation prescribed in the statute. In view thereof, I find no substance in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

WPC No.16530 of 2022 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16530/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE IS ISSUED BY DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.), THRISSUR. Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 COPY OF SMS (SCREENSHOT) RECEIVED TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P7 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P11 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT . Exhibit P12 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT . Exhibit P13 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P15 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P16 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P17 COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WP NO. 1334/21 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN MUMBAI.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →