MERINA SABU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18082/2022HC KeralaKLHC01036958202206 June 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala quashed Exts.P7 order and Ext.P8 notice. The Court directed the competent respondent authority to take a fresh decision after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This decision is to be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires consideration of the assessee's submissions before proceeding with re-assessment, and technical errors should not preclude such consideration. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned order and notice and a fresh decision-making process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Merina Sabu, approached the High Court of Kerala aggrieved by the decision to proceed against her under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for re-assessment. She contended that her reply to the re-assessment notice was not considered. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order and notice under challenge are Exts.P7 and P8. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The procedural history involves the petitioner submitting a reply which she claims was not considered, leading to her filing this writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act can proceed without considering the reply submitted by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the re-assessment proceedings were flawed because her reply to the notice under Section 148 was not considered by the authorities. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the reply could not be considered due to a technical error and that the authorities were amenable to reconsidering the matter if directed by the Court.

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 GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 18082 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: MERINA SABU AGED 42 YEARS KONDOOR HOUSE PRAYAR, PANDANAD NORTH PO CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 689124 BY ADVS. R.JAIKRISHNA NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN ANISH P. C.S.ARUN SHANKAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, BEACH ROAD PO, ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688001 2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O KOCHI , PIN - 682018 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 18082 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the decision to proceed against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (for re-assessment), without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.

2.

When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents that the reply could not be considered on account of some technical error and authorities are not averse to the matter being reconsidered on orders of this Court.

3.

Taking note of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Exts.P7 order and Ext.P8 notice will stand quashed, with a direction to the competent among the respondents to take fresh decision after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A decision shall be taken as above, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 18082 OF 2022 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18082/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 24.3.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.4.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.4.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.4.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT FROM THE ONLINE PORTAL DATED NIL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE ONLINE PORTAL DATED NIL Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 20.5.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 20.5.2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP (C) 15561/2022 DATED 10.5.2022

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →