ANIYAN MATHEW, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 38336 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: ANIYAN MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS S/O M.V. MATHEW MANGALATH HOUSE, CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 008. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), RANGE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee, submitted his returns for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Later, the Assistant Commissioner of the Income

WPC No.38336 of 2018 2 Tax issued the Exts.P1 and P3 notices. On receiving them, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P2 request to the Assistant Commissioner. He wanted to know on what basis the department issued the notices under Section 148. According to the petitioner, if the reasons were supplied, he could give an effective reply. Then, the Assistant Commissioner issued Exts.P4 and P5 replies. Eventually, the petitioner also submitted Exts.P6 and P7 objections. 2. At any rate, the petitioner apprehends that before the authority could rule on the petitioner's objections, he will finalise the assessment proceedings. So the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has issued the Exts.P1 and P3 notices after a long lapse of time. With that lapse of time, it is impossible for the petitioner to provide an effective defence to the notices the department issued under Section 148. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Apex Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer1. 4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn my 1 (2003) 259 ITR 0019

WPC No.38336 of 2018 3 attention to Exts.P7 and P8 objections. He asserts that the writ petition is based on mere apprehension. The authorities will consider the objections and rule on them before they finalise the proceedings, he adds. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the authorities will consider the petitioner's Exts.P6 and P7 objections, keeping in view, as the petitioner pleads, the Apex Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (india)'s case, and then finalise the proceedings. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.3.2018 FOR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.3.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER F NO ACIT/CIR 1(1) 147/AEWPM0430L/2019-19 DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED

WPC No.38336 of 2018 4 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO ACIT/CIR-1(1) 147/AEWPM 0430L/2018-19 DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13.