RENJU vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/11735/2022HC KeralaKLHC01024092202216 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition is allowed and the assessment order (Ext.P3) is quashed. The Court found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without considering the petitioner's request for adjournment made on 16.03.2022, which sought time until 22.03.2022. It was apparent that the Assessing Officer was not aware of this request when passing the order on 22.03.2022, especially since the petitioner's objections (Exts.P5 to P8) were submitted on the same day the order was passed. The Court reasoned that in the interest of justice, the respondent should pass fresh orders after considering the response filed by the petitioner. The operative direction was for the respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment after considering Exts.P5 to P8, in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renju, challenged an ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P3) passed by the respondent, the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The assessment order was dated 22.03.2022. The petitioner received a show cause notice (Ext.P1) on 12.03.2022, requiring a response by 23:59 hours on 16.03.2022. The petitioner submitted a request for adjournment on 16.03.2022, seeking time until 22.03.2022. However, the assessment order dated 22.03.2022 did not acknowledge this request and stated that no response had been received. The petitioner contended that their request for adjournment was not considered and that a response had been submitted by 22.03.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.03.2022, which was passed ex-parte, is valid when the petitioner had submitted a request for adjournment on 16.03.2022, seeking time until 22.03.2022, and had also submitted a response by 22.03.2022, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without considering their request for adjournment and their subsequent submission of objections. They contended that the Assessing Officer was unaware of the adjournment request when passing the order, as the objections were submitted on the same day the order was passed. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent filed a counter affidavit narrating previous instances where the petitioner was granted time to submit responses. However, no specific explanation was provided for the non-consideration of the adjournment request made on 16.03.2022 in the order dated 22.03.2022.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 PETITIONER: RENJU AGED 33 YEARS KUDUKKALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 305 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 100 001 SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 2 T.R.RAVI, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No.11735 of 2022 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2023

JUDGMENT

Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent.

2.

The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 order of assessment on the ground that the assessment has been completed ex-parte. Ext.P1 is the show cause notice issued under Section 144 directing the petitioner to submit his response by 23:59 hours of 16.03.2022. Ext.P1 is dated 12.03.2022. The petitioner submitted a request seeking adjournment till 22.03.2022. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment regarding the receipt for adjournment which specifically shows that the request is made on 16.03.2022 and adjournment is sought up to 22.03.2022. However, the assessment order which was issued on 22.03.2022 does not WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 3 refer to such a request for adjournment. In fact, in paragraph No.7 of the order, it specifically says that finally a show cause notice was issued on 12.03.2022 fixing the hearing on or before 16.03.2022 but again no response has been received so far. The petitioner contends that his request has not even been considered and as a matter of fact by 22.03.2022, he had already submitted his response.

3.

The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein the previous instances when the petitioner had been given time to submit his response has been narrated. However, there is no explanation for the non-consideration of the request for adjournment made on 16.03.2022 in the order dated 22.03.2022. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer was not aware of the request while passing the order. Particularly since the objections has been submitted on the same day on which the order was passed, interest of justice requires that the respondent passes fresh orders after considering the response filed by the petitioner which have been produced as Exts.P5 to P8. WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 4 In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment after considering Exts.P5 to P8, in accordance with law. T.R.RAVI sn JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11735/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF WEB PAGE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EVIDENCING THE FILING OF SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 COPY OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →