AFEEF CASHEW COMPANY V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/869/2019

AI Insights

The case involves AfEEF Cashew Company, which challenged an assessment order by the Income Tax Department, alleging that the order was passed without following due procedure and thus violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order in question was based on discrepancies between the duty drawback claimed by the petitioner and the amount admitted. The petitioner argued that they did not receive proper communication regarding the assessment due to it being placed in a spam folder. The court found that although the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond, they did not, and thus concluded the assessment. However, the court decided to provide another opportunity for the petitioner to explain the discrepancies, imposing costs for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697506 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHA JOHN
• Keywords: Duty Drawback; E-proceedings; Income tax assessment; Natural Justice; Spam folder
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 271(1)(c); 271(b); 271 F

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 PETITIONER: AFEEF CASHEW COMPANY VP IX 415 C VP IX/415 C, THATTAMALA - 691 020, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, KOLLAM AYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, R.S.ROAD, KOLLAM- 691 001. 2 ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER KOLLAM RANGE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM- 691 001. BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 ..2.. JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is an assessee of the Income Tax Department. They challenge Ext.P4 assessment order. The Petitioner's case is that the assessment order has been passed without following due procedure. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that natural justice has been denied. 2. As seen from the impugned proceedings there was no response on the side of the petitioner. The petitioner was communicated about the proposed assessment, on account of difference in the draw back claimed by the petitioner. It is to be noted that in terms of Sec.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment proceedings can be concluded in e-proceedings. As seen from Ext.R(b), the petitioner was communicated. The petitioner's further case is WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 ..3.. that this communication was placed in spam folder and the petitioner could trace out only after the passing of the assessment order. 3. As seen from the proceedings, though objection was solicited from the petitioner, there was no response. In the absence of response, the assessment was concluded. It is to be noted that after the issuance of notice, no further hearing was offered to the petitioner. Petitioner has also a case that their E.mail has been changed subsequently. If the E.mail had been changed, it should have be informed to the Income Tax Officer. As seen from the impugned order, it was passed noting that the petitioner claimed duty draw back for Rs.1,07,33,846/- and they admitted only Rs.68,33,568/- and there was no explanation in regard to the differences. 4. Taking note of the above, I am of the WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 ..4.. view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to explain the differences. Though this Court could have relegated the petitioner to move an appeal, it will serve no purpose in the absence of explanation being furnished by the petitioner. However, this court is of the view that cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs.25,000/- within three weeks. Petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority on 05.04.2019, and thereafter raise objections, the proceedings shall be concluded within a further period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE PR/19.03.2019 WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 ..5.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) DATED 18/09/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/05/2018 ISSUED U/S.142(1) BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15/05/2018 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17/12/2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER 274 R/2 271(1) (C). EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R/W 271 (B). EXHIBIT P5 B TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R/W 271 F. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE MAIL ID AS GIVEN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 31/05/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 04/12/2018. WP(C).No. 869 of 2019 ..6.. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT R(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4-12-2018 SENT IN THE EMAIL ID FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME "