SREE PARVATHY INDUSTRIES, THRISSUR vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner's submission regarding the closure of its office and business leading to non-receipt of emails is without substance. Communications have been sent electronically to the registered email since 2013, and the petitioner's business closure occurred after the due date for filing the return for AY 2017-18. The Court found no reasonable cause for the petitioner's failure to file the return within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal against the assessment and penalty orders, along with applications for condonation of delay and stay, these applications shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within two months. No coercive measures were to be taken for two months. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sree Parvathy Industries, a partnership firm dealing in packing cases, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P3) and a penalty order (Ext.P4) for assessment year 2017-18, along with a demand notice (Ext.P1). The petitioner's business ceased in 2020, and its GST registration was cancelled in March 2021. The firm did not file its income tax return for AY 2017-18. Despite notices, the petitioner failed to respond, leading the Assessing Authority to pass an ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, and a penalty order under Section 270A. The petitioner claimed inability to respond due to the closure of its office and business, and thus not checking the registered email. The petitioner sought an opportunity to appear before the Assessing Authority to submit documents for a fresh assessment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner has a valid reason for not filing the income tax return for assessment year 2017-18 and responding to notices, given the closure of its business and office, and consequently not checking the registered email. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that due to the closure of its office and business, it could not access the registered email and therefore failed to respond to electronically issued notices and file the return. It seeks an opportunity to present its documents for a fresh assessment. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contends that communications and assessment orders have been sent electronically since 2013 to the petitioner's registered email. Despite notices being served, the petitioner did not respond. The Revenue points out that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246A before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, along with an application for condonation of delay and stay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 246A
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 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 5TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 31625 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SREE PARVATHY INDUSTRIES, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. SUMESH P.D., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O LATE DAMODARAN, PULINKUZHY HOUSE, P.O. AVINISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680313 BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP HAREESH M.R. SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN T.T.BIJU T.THASMI M.J.ANOOPA RESPONDENTS: 1 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- , PIN – 110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) THRISSUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 4 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560500 ADV.JOSE JOSEPH-SC-IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.31625 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of September, 2023 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Ext.P3 assessment order and Ext.P4 penalty order passed by the 3rd respondent for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner also challenges the demand notice Ext.P1 issued in respect to Exts.P3 and P4 orders. 2. The petitioner was a partnership firm, dealing in the business of packing cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the adverse business results, the business was stopped in the year 2020. The registration of the firm under GST Act was cancelled with effect from 03.03.2021. The business office was also closed in the year 2020 itself. The petitioner did not file the return of his income for the assessment year 2017-18. Despite notices having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to
WPC No.31625 of 2023 3 file the return of his income. Consequently, the Assessing Authority completed the assessment exparte on the basis of the materials available on record and finalised the assessment under the provisions of Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B by the impugned assessment order Ext.P3 dated 22.03.2022 and the penalty order has been passed under Section 270A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the office of the petitioner was closed, and there was no business which was being carried by the petitioner, the petitioner could not look at the e-mail which was provided to the Income Tax Department. Because of this fact, the petitioner could not respond to the notices electronically issued to him and did not file the return. He further submitted that the petitioner has every documents in his possession, and if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority, he will submit all the documents and a fresh assessment order can be passed.
WPC No.31625 of 2023 4 3. Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department has opposed this prayer and submitted that since 2013, the communications and assessment orders are sent only electronically. The petitioner was issued notices through the e-mail of the petitioner registered with the Department. However, despite the notices have been served, he did not respond. He further submitted that the petitioner has the right to file an appeal under Section 246A before the National Faceless Appeal Centre along with application for condonation of delay and stay, and if such an appeal is filed along with the applications mentioned above, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 3. I have considered the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute that the communications were sent to the petitioner through the e-mail registered with the Income Tax Department. No physical notice is served and the assessment orders are not physically sent to an
WPC No.31625 of 2023 5 assessee since the year 2013. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the business premises or the office of the petitioner was closed down, the e-mail id registered with the Income Tax Department does not exist. The petitioner has not filed the return of the income for the assessment year 2017-18 till 2021. Even as per the petitioner’s own case, the petitioner’s business was closed only in the year 2020 and GST registration was cancelled in the year 2021. The petitioner ought to have filed the return of his income for the assessment year 2017-18 by 30.09.2018. Therefore, I am not convinced that the petitioner has any reasonable cause for not filing the return within the stipulated time. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file an appeal and the petitioner may avail the remedy by filing an appeal against the assessment order and penalty order before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. If the petitioner files appeal against the assessment order
WPC No.31625 of 2023 6 and penalty order along with the applications for condonation of delay and stay, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Appellate Authority will make sincere endeavor to consider the application for condonation of delay and stay application, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing. No coercive measures to be taken in pursuance to Ext.P1 for a period of two months. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP
WPC No.31625 of 2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31625/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO ITBA/RCV/F/2023- 24/1055627652(1) DATED 31-08-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER GST NO ZA3203210027753 DATED 03-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, 1ST CIRCLE, THRISSUR Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041225568(1) DATED 22-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2022-23/1045713324(1) DATED 20-09-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2016-17 DATED 1-06-2017 UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01-04-2016 TO 31-03-2017 ISSUED BY THE ICICI BANK Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN UNDER INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 DATED 13-05-2020 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN UNDER INCOME TAX ACT DATED 31-03-2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS IN THE PORTAL OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026