NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed on the ground that the assessment order (Ext.P10) was issued as if the petitioner had time only until 9:51 a.m. on March 24, 2022, to reply to the draft assessment order and show cause notice. This contradicted the time granted in the show cause notice (Ext.P11), which was until 11:59 p.m. on the same day. Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files a response to the draft assessment order within five days from the date the assessing officer permits the petitioner to upload a reply, the same shall be considered. A fresh assessment order will be issued thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on other aspects of the matter.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Narayanan Vasudevan, proprietor of M/s. Vasudev Clinic, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P10) and the consequent demand. The petitioner contended that he was issued a show cause notice (Ext.P11) under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, granting him time until 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2022, to reply to the draft assessment order. However, the assessment order (Ext.P10) was issued on the same day, March 24, 2022, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Kannur, and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, implying the petitioner's reply time had expired at 9:51 a.m. on that date. The revenue argued that the petitioner was raising technical arguments to evade assessment completion and had an alternate remedy.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order was validly passed, considering the discrepancy in the time granted for the petitioner to reply to the draft assessment order and show cause notice, as per Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was prematurely issued on March 24, 2022, despite being granted time until 11:59 p.m. on that day to file a response to the draft assessment order and show cause notice. The issuance of the order at 9:51 a.m. on the same day, before the expiry of the granted time, rendered it invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner was employing technical arguments to delay the assessment process and that the petitioner possessed an effective alternative remedy. The revenue also argued that the petitioner's conduct disentitled him to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of assessment and consequent demand raised on the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Ext.P11 show cause notice issued under Section 144B of the Income Tax that the petitioner was given time till 11.59 p.m.(23.59 hours) on 24.3.2022 to reply to the draft assessment order along with the show cause notice. With reference to Ext.P10 order of assessment, it is pointed out that the said order was issued on 24.3.2022 itself, without waiting for the reply of the petitioner, taking the view that the petitioner had time only until 9.51 a.m. on 24.3.2022 to reply to the draft assessment order and accompanying show cause notice.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is taking highly technical argument and is trying to evade the completion of assessment within time. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy. It is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief in exercise of juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, I am of the view that without going into any other aspect of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed as Ext.P10 order of assessment was issued as if the petitioner had time only till 9.51 a.m. on 24.3.2022 to reply to the draft assessment order and the show cause notice, while going by Ext.P11, the petitioner had time till 11.50 p.m.(23.59 hours) on 24.3.2022 to reply to the draft assessment order/show cause notice. Therefore, Ext.P10 order of assessment will stand quashed. If the petitioner files a response to Ext.P10 draft assessment order within five days from the date on which the assessing officer permits the petitioner to upload a reply, the same shall be considered and a fresh order of assessment shall be issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition will stand disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
