ANILKUMAR.K.K vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12973/2022HC KeralaKLHC01026183202213 July 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P8) was not issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court noted that several notices had been issued to the petitioner and that his previous replies had been considered. While the request for a ten-day extension made on 28.03.2022 was not acceded to, the court found a genuine reason for this refusal, namely, that the assessment was getting time-barred on 31.03.2022. The court also observed that the petitioner made the request for adjournment only on 28.03.2022, despite the notice being issued on 23.03.2022. Consequently, the court refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the assessment order before the First Appellate Authority. The period during which the writ petition was pending was excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal, provided the appeal and stay petition were filed within one week. Recovery proceedings were deferred until the Appellate Authority decided the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anilkumark.k, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P8) passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles because his request for an extension of time to file a reply (Ext.P7, dated 28.03.2022) was not considered, and the assessment was completed on 29.03.2022. The respondent department argued that multiple notices had been issued and responded to by the petitioner. They further submitted that the request for a ten-day extension could not be granted as the assessment was time-barred on 31.03.2022, and sufficient opportunity had already been provided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P8) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-consideration of the petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a reply, as per Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was vitiated by a violation of natural justice as his request for an extension of time to file a reply was not considered, and even if the extension was not granted, the officer should have intimated the petitioner. The petitioner sought further time to submit additional documents. Revenue's Contention: The respondent department argued that at least five notices were issued and responded to by the petitioner. The request for a ten-day extension could not be accommodated because the assessment was time-barred on 31.03.2022. They asserted that sufficient opportunity was granted and principles of natural justice were complied with. The department also raised the issue of an effective alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292B

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 GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: ANILKUMAR.K.K AGED 50 YEARS KAILAS, THIKKODI, PAYYOLI.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673529. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 2

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P8 order of assessment, principally on the ground that the same is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as the request submitted by the petitioner vide Ext.P7 on 28.03.2022 for extension of time to file a reply was not considered and the assessment was completed on 29.03.2022. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department would point out from Paragraph No.7 of Ext.P8 that at least five notices were earlier issued to the petitioner on the various dates shown therein and the petitioner had responded to those notices. It is submitted that the request for granting ten days time submitted on 28.03.2022 could not have been considered by the officer as the assessment was getting time barred on 31.03.2022. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice have been complied with. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy against Ext.P8 order and that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 in exercise of juri iction under Article

WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 3 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the request for adjournment made vide Ext.P7 was not responded to and even if the time sought was not being granted, the officer ought to have intimated the petitioner about the same. It is submitted that though the notices mentioned in Paragraph No.7 were received by the petitioner, the petitioner wanted further time for submitting additional documents to prove his case before the officer and the refusal to grant such time vitiates the entire proceedings.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department, I am of the view that considering the matters set out in Paragraph No.7 of Ext.P8 order, there is no reason to hold that Ext.P8 order was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. Several notices were issued to the petitioner which were admittedly, received by the petitioner. Those replies have been considered by the officer while passing Ext.P8 order. It is true that the request made by the petitioner on 28.03.2022 for a further period of ten days to submit a reply was not acceded to by the officer. However, there appears to be WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 4 a genuine reason for not granting that adjournment. The assessment was getting time barred on 31.03.2022. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the officer for not accommodating the petitioner’s request for adjournment by a period of ten days from 28.03.2022. I must also notice that the petitioner made Ext.P7 request only on 28.03.2022, though the notice was issued on 23.03.2022. Therefore, interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is refused, making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 before the First Appellate Authority, who shall consider the appeal uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment. To enable the petitioner to approach the First Appellate Authority with an appeal along with an application for stay, the period during which this writ petition was pending before this Court namely, from 06.04.2022 till today, shall be excluded for the purpose of determining any period of limitation within which the appeal had to be filed. This benefit shall be available only if the petitioner files an appeal along with the stay petition within one week from today. If the appeal along with the stay application is filed within one week from today, proceedings for recovery of any amount due under Ext.P8 shall be deferred,

WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 5 till a decision is taken by the Appellate Authority on the stay petition, to be filed by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 6

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12973/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P8 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 COPY OF ORDER/INTIMATION ISSUED U/S.143(1) OF CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.

More judgments on Section 292B

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →