V MARIYAPPAN CHETTIAR SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12823/2023HC KeralaKLHC01028233202311 April 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the writ petition and noted the contentions of the petitioner. However, the Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-supply of a draft assessment order under Section 144 was not justified, as the petitioner could not be treated as an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15). The Court observed that factual aspects were involved and that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the appropriate authority with an appeal. The Court further stipulated that if an appeal was filed within two weeks, it would be considered and orders issued within four months, with coercive steps against the petitioner kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment or the opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V. Mariyappan Chettiar Sons, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order of assessment. The petitioner contended that after a remand by the Tribunal, the assessing officer reassessed them based on issues already finalized by the Tribunal and that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing. A primary grievance was the non-supply of a draft assessment order, as allegedly required under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Thrissur, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a draft assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if so, whether its non-supply vitiates the assessment order? (Question of law) 2. Whether the assessing officer reassessed issues already finalized by the Tribunal after remand, and if so, whether this constitutes a procedural irregularity or an error in assessment? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that they were not supplied with a draft assessment order as required under Section 144. - They also contended that the assessing officer reassessed aspects already finalized by the Tribunal after remand. - A further contention was that they were not given an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through the learned Standing Counsel, took notice of the petition. - The Court noted that the petitioner could not be treated as an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15), implying a contention that Section 144 was not applicable in this manner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023
T.C18/10

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023 PETITIONER: V.MARIYAPPAN CHETTIAR SONS, T.C18/1056 & 1057, RICE BAZAR, THRISSUR – 680001 THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI.KRISHNAKUMAR S. BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), THRISSUR RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR – 680001 2 ASSESSMENT UNIT/TECHNICAL UNIT/REVIEW UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682018 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT Admit. The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order of assessment made. It is a case of the petitioner that after remand by the Tribunal, the officer has again gone ahead to assess the petitioner based on aspects which have already become final by the order of the Tribunal. There is also a contention that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. The main ground for filing the writ petition is that the petitioner was not supplied with a draft assessment order as is required under Section 144. The said contention does not appear to be justified since the petitioner cannot be treated as an eligible assessee under Section 144C sub-clause 15. The petitioner has a remedy under the statute. In view of the fact that factual aspects are involved, it is only proper that the petitioner avails statutory remedy rather than invoke the juri iction of this Court. The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the petitioner to approach

WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023 3 the appropriate authority with an appeal. If the petitioner prefers such an appeal within two weeks, the same shall be considered and orders issued within four months therefrom. The coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal as directed to be filed. T.R.RAVI JUDGE nak

WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12823/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR AY:2014-15 OF PETITIONER FIRM. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR AY:2014-15 IN RESPECT OF M/S.SREE SAI TRADERS, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED U/S.143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY:2014-15, IN ADOPTING PURCHASE TURNOVER OF M/S.SREE SAI TRADERS IN ASSESSING PETITIONER FIRM. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ITA-1242/16-17 DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR IN ALLOWING APPEAL. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER NO.271/COCH/2020 DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN THE 2ND APPEAL FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT-P4 1ST APPELLATE ORDER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE NOTICES DATED 14.03.2023 AND 15.03.2023 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, U/S.142(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT FOR AY:2014-15, REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DETAILS, UNDER PROFORMA. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.03.2023 SUBMITTED UNDER E-FILING ACCOUNT AGAINST EXT P6 NOTICES, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C) NO. 12823 OF 2023 5 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2023 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY: 2014-15. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.03.2023 SUBMITTED UNDER E-FILING ACCOUNT, AGAINST EXT P8 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE FACELESS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) READ WITH SEC.254 AND 144B OF IT ACT PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR AY:2014-15 WITHOUT PROVIDING A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →