GOOD HOME PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22297/2020HC KeralaKLHC01055820202006 November 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the conduct of the First Appellate Authority in not granting an adjournment, under circumstances where the appeals were taken up more than six years after their filing, constituted an unfair procedure. The Court found no reason for the authority to pass orders in such haste and without hearing the assessee. Consequently, the appellate orders (Exts. P9 and P10) were deemed vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing Exts. P9 and P10. The First Appellate Authority was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on 07.12.2020, either physically or through video conferencing, and the authority was to pass orders within one month thereafter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Good Home Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging appellate orders (Exts. P9 and P10) passed by the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that their appeals were filed in 2014, but the First Appellate Authority did not take them up for consideration until 2020. In August 2020, the petitioner received a notice for personal hearing. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner requested an adjournment, which was allegedly not considered favorably, leading to the impugned orders being passed. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate orders (Exts. P9 and P10) passed by the First Appellate Authority are vitiated by a non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the denial of an adjournment request made by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the First Appellate Authority acted unfairly by not granting an adjournment, especially considering the significant delay in hearing the appeals (filed in 2014, heard in 2020). The adjournment request was necessitated by the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. The authority passed orders without affording a proper hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WP(C).No.22297 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: GOOD HOME PRIVATE LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, PUTHOORAN PLAZA, KPCC JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. (AR.)B.R.AJIT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.VAISAKHI V. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) KOCHI-1, POORNIMA BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I(1), KOCHI, O/O.ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-I, CR BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) R1-2 BY JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.22297 OF 2020(J) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10 appellate orders passed by the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that while the appeals were preferred as early as in 2014 and the First Appellate Authority had not taken up the appeals for consideration till 2020, he was served with a notice for personal hearing in August 2020 and on receipt of the same, on account of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, he had sought for an adjournment. It is the case in the writ petition that the adjournment request was not considered favourably by the First Appellate Authority and Exts.P9 and P10 were passed in the appeal against the petitioner.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the conduct of the 1 st respondent First Appellate Authority in not granting an adjournment as sought for by the petitioner, under circumstances where the appeal itself was taken up more than six years after their filing, is nothing short of unfair procedure. There was no reason for the First Appellate Authority to pass orders in the appeals in such haste and that too without hearing the assessee. I am of the view that Exts.P9 and P10 appellate orders are vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. I, accordingly, dispose the writ petition by quashing Exts.P9 and P10 and directing the First Appellate Authority to pass fresh orders in the matter after hearing the WP(C).No.22297 OF 2020(J) 3 petitioner. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at 11 AM on 07.12.2020 either through physical appearance or through video conferencing, as the case may be. The 1st respondent shall pass orders in the matter within a month thereafter. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.22297 OF 2020(J) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.11.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 2010. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2014 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.03.2015 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.08.2020 WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.08.2020 WITH RESPECT OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST IN RESPECT OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER MR.B.PRATHAP, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS OFFICIAL E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST IN RESPECT OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER MR.B.PRATHAP, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS OFFICIAL E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2020 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)KOCHI-1/10310/2014-15 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. WP(C).No.22297 OF 2020(J) 5 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2020 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)KOCHI-1/10489/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPELLATE COMMISSIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →