M/S. WE CONNECT AGENCIES, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/6115/2024HC KeralaKLHC01082942202416 February 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that Ext.P5 order was liable to be quashed. The Court noted that the order itself indicated that although the petitioner's submissions were uploaded on 23-08-2023, the appellate authority proceeded to decide the appeal on the premise that no submissions were filed before 08-09-2023. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Court quashed Ext.P5 and restored the appeal (Ext.P2) to the file of the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the appeal after taking into account Ext.P4 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. We Connect Agencies, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenging an order (Ext.P5) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment for the assessment year 2018-2019, which resulted in a substantial demand. The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 was issued without providing an opportunity for a hearing and without considering their submissions filed on 23-08-2023 (Ext.P4). The appellate authority, in Ext.P5, incorrectly stated that submissions were not uploaded before 08-09-2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ext.P5) is liable to be quashed for being passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering their submissions filed on 23-08-2023 (Ext.P4)? (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that Ext.P5 was issued in violation of natural justice principles. They specifically pointed out that the appellate authority erroneously recorded that no submissions were uploaded before 08-09-2023, whereas their submissions (Ext.P4) were uploaded on 23-08-2023. They contended that the appeal was decided without considering their filed submissions and without a proper hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents was heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6115 OF 2024 PETITIONER: M/S. WE CONNECT AGENCIES, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RATHEESH.V.R., PIN – 685 515. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.6115/2024 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. By Ext.P1 order the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2018-2019 was completed by the assessing officer resulting in a substantial demand on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The said appeal has now been rejected by Ext.P5 order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 order has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the submissions filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P4. Specific reference is made to paragraph No.5 of Ext.P5 order to show that the appellate authority has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not uploaded its submissions before 08-09-2023, whereas Ext.P4 will show that the submissions were uploaded as early as on 23-08-2023. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

W.P.(C) No.6115/2024 -:3:- and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and having regard to the fact that a reading of Ext.P5 itself indicates that though the submissions of the petitioner were uploaded on 23-08-2023, the appeal was decided by the appellate authority on the basis that no such submissions were filed before 08-09-2023 and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore Ext.P5 can only be set aside. The appellate authority is required to pass orders after considering Ext.P4 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Therefore, Ext.P5 is quashed. Ext.P2 appeal is restored to the file of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the appeal taking note of Ext.P4 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

W.P.(C) No.6115/2024 -:4:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6115/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 20-03-2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22-05-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-08-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMITTED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 04-10-2023 Exhibit P6 COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO. 30168/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 04-10-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →