ELIM CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/12505/2021HC KeralaKLHC01033717202123 September 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the alleged invalidity of the assessment order under Section 143 of the Act, did not decide on the merits of these issues. Instead, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P9) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P6) and the notice (Ext.P7) be kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided. No specific finding was made on the validity of the assessment order or the grounds raised by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elim Charitable & Educational Trust, is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P6) passed by the Assessing Officer (2nd respondent) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal (Ext.P9) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent). While the appeal was pending, the petitioner received further notices (Exts.P7 and P8). The petitioner raised several contentions, including the invalidity of the assessment order due to non-compliance with Section 143 of the Act. The case came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P6) issued by the Assessing Officer is invalid for not satisfying the requirements of law under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 143). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was invalid, citing non-compliance with the legal requirements under Section 143 of the Act. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for this contention. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12505 OF 2021 PETITIONER: ELIM CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST 39/1603, ELAVANAL ENCLAVE, KANNATHODATH LANE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682016, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE E. K. KURIAN. BY ADVS.LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682018. 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT /DEPUTY /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX-OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 110 006. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER APPEALS, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. SC.ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12505 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.12505 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021

JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by Ext.P6 assessment order, issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act] by the 2nd respondent; petitioner preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the 3rd respondent. In the meantime, petitioner has been served with Exts.P7 and P8 notices.

Petitioner has raised numerous contentions including invalidity of the order of assessment, issued without satisfying the requirements of law under Section 143 of the Act, etc.

Having regard to the nature of contentions raised and after hearing arguments of Adv.Leejoy Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the WP(C) NO. 12505 OF 2021 3 view that the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Till such orders are passed, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/23/09//2021

WP(C) NO. 12505 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12505/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER CONFIRMING REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 12A. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) DATED 22.09.02019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 142(1). Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 26.03.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.04.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.04.2021. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SEC. 156 DATED 22.04.2021. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DIRECTING TO FURNISH REASONS IF ANY, FOR NOT IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SEC.274 R/W SEC 270A. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COPY. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 26.05.2021 FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →