ARUN THOMAS, vs. UNION OF INDIA,

PDF · subscribers
WA/91/2024HC KeralaKLHC01005146202422 January 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment, observed that it found no prima facie reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, which had rightly declined to intervene in the assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the assessee had raised three contentions: the non-existence of digital signatures on notices, the failure to consider the option for video conferencing, and the illegality of the assessment re-opening. The Court stated that if the assessee was aggrieved by the assessment order, they were free to urge all these contentions by way of an appeal before the competent authority. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with these observations.

What were the facts?

These are intra-court appeals filed by Arun Thomas against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala. The Single Judge had declined to interfere with assessment orders completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals challenge the dismissal of writ petitions that sought to quash these assessment orders. The appellant is Arun Thomas, and the respondents are the Union of India, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Thiruvalla, and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The appeals were filed against judgments dated 29.11.2023 in WP(C) 18293/2022 and WP(C) 18292/2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings are bad in law due to the alleged non-existence of digital signatures on the notices issued to the assessee? (Question of law) 2. Whether the assessment proceedings are illegal because the assessee's option for video conferencing was not considered before passing the assessment orders? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the digital signatures on the notices were non-existent, rendering the proceedings invalid. The assessee also argued that their request for video conferencing was ignored, leading to a flawed assessment process. Furthermore, the assessee claimed that the re-opening of the assessment was illegal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WA NO. 91 OF 2024
WA.93/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 91 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN WP(C) 18293/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ARUN THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, KANNATTU BABY MEMORIAL BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR , RESIDING AT KANNATTU HOUSE, PERISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR., PIN – 689 126 BY ADVS. KURYAN THOMAS JOSON MANAVALAN K.JOHN MATHAI M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689 101 3 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 003

WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..2.. ADV. JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.93/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..3.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 93 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN WP(C) 18292/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ARUN THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, KANNATTU BABY MEMORIAL BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR- 689121, RESIDING AT KANNATTU HOUSE, PERISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR-689 126. BY ADVS. KURYAN THOMAS JOSON MANAVALAN M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, T.K. ROAD, THIRUVALLA 689101., PIN – 689 101 3 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110

WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..4.. 003 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.91/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..5.. J U D G M E N T A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. These intra-court appeals arise from the order of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the assessment order completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Essentially, the petitioner urged three contentions. One is that the Digital Signatures put on the notices are non-existence and therefore, the impugned proceedings are bad in law. Secondly, it was held that though the appellant/petitioner opted for video conferencing, that was not considered before passing the orders. The third contention is that re-opening of the assessment is illegal. 3. We, prima facie, do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned as the same is rightly turned down by the learned Single Judge. If that be so, the petitioner is free to urge all these contentions by way of an appeal before the competent authority.

WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..6.. With the above observations, these appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE PR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →