A. E. Varghese V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Officer NC Ward 2(5)

WA/2130/2023

AI Insights

The case involves A. E. Varghese, the appellant, who challenged the order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act, claiming that he was not heard in the faceless proceedings. The appellant argued that notices were sent to his Chartered Accountant's email instead of his own, despite his explicit instructions to the contrary. The learned Single Judge found no violation of natural justice as the notice was sent to the provided email address and suggested the appellant seek remedy at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant appealed this decision, leading to the current judgment which upheld the Single Judge's decision but provided temporary relief against recovery actions pending the outcome of the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796893 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: ASWIN GOPAKUMAR; ADITYA VENUGOPALAN; ANWIN GOPAKUMAR; MAHESH CHANDRAN; NIKITHA SUSAN PAULSON; SARANYA BABU; SHALLET K SAM
• Keywords: Faceless Proceedings; First Appellate Authority; Income tax appellate tribunal; Natural Justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 2130 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2023 IN WP(C) 35663/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: A. E. VARGHESE, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. A. E. EDICHANDI, ARAKKANATIL HOUSE, ODAMPALLY ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682005 BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ADITYA VENUGOPALAN SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.MAHESH CHANDRAN SMT.NIKITHA SUSAN PAULSON SMT.SARANYA BABU SMT.SHALLET K. SAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER NC WARD 2(5), NON-CORPORATE RANGE, XVI/997, A-21, 2ND FLOOR, L. G. TOWERS, P.T. JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, PIN - 682005 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2: W .ANo.2130 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No.35663 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.11.2023 of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The ground in the Writ Petition in its challenge against the First Appellate Authority's order was that the First Appellate Authority had not heard the appellant in the faceless proceedings that were adopted for the purposes of disposing the first appeal. In particular, it is pointed out that while the appellant had indicated in the appeal form that communication was to be addressed to the address of the appellant, the First Appellate Authority had issued notice regarding the hearing of the appeal to the email address furnished therein being that of the Chartered Accountant of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice since the notice regarding the hearing of the appeal had already been issued to the Chartered Accountant at the email address furnished on behalf of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, :3: W .ANo.2130 of 2023 relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy of preferring an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for considering the challenge against the order of the First Appellate Authority. 2. Before us, it is the fervent plea of Smt.Shallet K. Sam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the orders of the First Appellate Authority be set aside and the matter remanded to the said Authority so as to have a fresh adjudication of the appeals. We have also heard Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that relegates the appellant to the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal need not be interfered with. At the same time, we find that the learned Single Judge had not protected the appellant against a possible demand arising consequent to the dismissal of the first appeal. To safeguard the appellant in this regard, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the recovery proceedings for recovery of any :4: W .ANo.2130 of 2023 amount confirmed against the appellant by the First Appellate order shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that this order is conditional upon the appellant preferring the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as directed by the learned Single Judge, within a period of one month from today. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns "