Thekkinian Poulose Varkey v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2 (1), Thrissur
[Citation -2019-LL-1211-29]

Citation 2019-LL-1211-29
Appellant Name Thekkinian Poulose Varkey
Respondent Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2 (1), Thrissur
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/12/2019
Assessment Year 2017-18
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags sufficient opportunity • acknowledgement of • alternative remedy • extension of time • assessment order • reasonable time • natural justice • non-compliance • in relation to • recovery proceeding
Bot Summary: No.33499/19 2 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is to Ext.P3 assessment order passed in relation to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P3 assessment order was passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that it was passed within a day after the submission of Ext.P2 reply by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the notice inviting objections to the proposal for assessment had been served as early as on 03.10.2019 and the petitioner was called upon to furnish details to clarify the doubts raised by the department. Responding to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a request for extension of time had been preferred before the respondent, it is clarified that, although a request was made on 11.10.2019 for extension of time to W.P.(C). On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Ext.P3 order was passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to prefer his objections to the queries raised by the department, and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before completing the assessment. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require some time to move the appellate authority, I direct that recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to W.P.(C). The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the respondent for further action.


W.P.(C).No.33499/19 1 IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.33499 OF 2019(J) PETITIONER/S: THEKKINIAN POULOSE VARKEY, AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR, T.P.CONSTRUCTIONS, AVM COMPLEX, CHIRANGARA KORATTY SOUTH P.O., THRISSUR-680308. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT/S: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), THRISSUR-680001. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2019, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.33499/19 2 JUDGMENT challenge in writ petition is to Ext.P3 assessment order passed in relation to petitioner under Income Tax Act for assessment year 2017-18. In writ petition, it is case of petitioner that Ext.P3 assessment order was passed without affording effective opportunity of hearing to petitioner and that it was passed within day after submission of Ext.P2 reply by petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent. 3. learned Standing Counsel would submit that notice inviting objections to proposal for assessment had been served as early as on 03.10.2019 and petitioner was called upon to furnish details to clarify doubts raised by department. response to said query raised by department was not received by department within time indicated in notice and it was under those circumstances that respondents proceeded to pass Ext.P3 order on 26.11.2019. Responding to submission of learned counsel for petitioner, that request for extension of time had been preferred before respondent, it is clarified that, although request was made on 11.10.2019 for extension of time to W.P.(C).No.33499/19 3 furnish objections, no objections were filed within reasonable time thereafter and assessing authority waited for more than month before passing Ext.P3 order. It is stated that under said circumstances, respondent cannot be faulted for having completed assessment without considering belated reply that was filed by petitioner to pre- assessment notices that was issued to him. 4. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case and submissions made across Bar, I find force in contention of learned counsel for respondent that Ext.P3 order was passed after giving sufficient opportunity to petitioner to prefer his objections to queries raised by department, and after granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner before completing assessment. I do not find Ext.P3 order to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error or non-compliance with rules of natural justice so as to interfere with same in these proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Resultantly, I dismiss writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 order and relegate petitioner to his alternative remedy of filing appeal before first appellate authority under Act. Taking note of submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he would require some time to move appellate authority, I direct that recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance for period of three weeks so as to enable petitioner to W.P.(C).No.33499/19 4 move appellate authority in meanwhile. petitioner shall produce copy of writ petition together with copy of this judgment before respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE okb //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C).No.33499/19 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3.10.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REPLY FILED ALONG WITH REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.9.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER. Thekkinian Poulose Varkey v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2 (1), Thrissur
Report Error