SREE CHAMUNDI DEVI TEMPLE TRUST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2844/2019HC KeralaKLHC01007635201931 January 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the petitioner received the notice on the afternoon of December 27, 2018, for a hearing scheduled at 11 AM on the same day, which remained uncontradicted. The court acknowledged the petitioner's bona fide conduct in filing objections and seeking an extension the following day. The court observed that the respondent authority completed the assessment proceedings by December 31, 2018. Considering these circumstances, the court deemed it in the interest of justice to grant the petitioner another opportunity. Consequently, the assessment order (Ext.P6) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The court, accepting a proposal from the standing counsel, fixed February 26, 2018, as the date of hearing before the Income Tax Officer, directing the petitioner to appear without further notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sree Chamundi Devi Temple Trust, filed an income tax return for assessment year 2016. Following a notice under Section 142(1), the trust claims to have submitted a reply. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, requiring the production of vouchers and bills and a show cause for proposed additions/disallowances. The petitioner asserts it received this notice only on the afternoon of December 27, 2018, the scheduled hearing date. The next day, the petitioner submitted objections and requested a ten-day extension. However, the Income Tax Officer completed the assessment on December 31, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer is vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically concerning the short notice provided to the assessee for a hearing and the subsequent completion of assessment. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that it received the notice under Section 143(2) only on the afternoon of December 27, 2018, despite the hearing being scheduled for 11 AM on the same day. This short notice prevented them from adequately preparing and producing documents. They acted bona fide by filing objections and requesting an extension the very next day. The assessment was completed hastily on December 31, 2018, possibly to avoid limitation issues. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue's standing counsel regarding the procedural irregularities. However, the standing counsel made a proposal regarding a future hearing date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 11TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 2844 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SREE CHAMUNDI DEVI TEMPLE TRUST THOZHUVANCODE CHAMUNDI TEMPLE, THOZHUVANCODE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM-695 013. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.BOBANLAL V.S BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS RESPONDENT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD, AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner is a public religious trust. For the assessment year 2016, it filed the income tax return. Later, in response to a notice issued by the authorities under Section 142 (1), the petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply. Nevertheless, under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner received another notice requiring it to produce its vouchers and bills in support of the return and also to show cause why for certain additions, disallowances should not be made.

2.

Though the hearing was scheduled for 27.12.2018 at 11 AM, the petitioner asserts that it received the notice only in the afternoon of that day. Therefore, the very next day the petitioner submitted its objections, besides seeking ten more days time to produce the documents. But the respondent authority went ahead and completed the assessment on 31.12.2018, perhaps—as the petitioner pleads—to avoid the problem of limitation.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent authority.

-3-

4.

Indeed, as it remains uncontradicted, the petitioner received the notice only in the afternoon of 27.12.2018, though the hearing was supposed to be at 11 Am. As an element of bona fide conduct on the petitioner's part, I notice that the very next day the petitioner filed its objections and sought ten more days time. Perhaps to avoid the technical tangles, the respondent authority completed the assessment proceedings by 31.12.2018. 5. Under these circumstances, it will only serves the interest of justice if the petitioner is given one more opportunity. I, therefore, set aside the Ext.P6 assessment order and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh adjudication.

6.

At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel proposes that if the Court fixes a date, the Income Tax Officer will take up the matter on that date, when the petitioner's representative could appear before the authority. I reckon the proposal is feasible. I, therefore, as a matter of mutual convenience for the parties, fix 26.02.2018 as the date of hearing before the Income Tax Officer. Without further notice, the petitioner's representative will appear on -4- that date before the authority, who then will proceed further with the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN DATED 25/04/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12/10/2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21/10/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/12/2018 UNDER SECTION 143(2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 28/12/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. -5- W.P.(C). No. 2844 of 2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →