Al Manama Retail Private Limited V. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and Union of India

WA/881/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Al Manama Retail Private Limited, the appellant, contesting an assessment order (Ext.P10) issued by the National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, which is part of the Income Tax Department. The appellant argued that the assessment officer did not provide an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice (Ext.P8), particularly citing the pandemic as a reason for not granting more time. The respondent countered that multiple notices were issued, indicating that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to respond. The Single Judge had earlier declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, suggesting the appellant pursue statutory appeal remedies, which led to this writ appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798548 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAMEEM AHAMED
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Effective Opportunity; Ex-parte assessment order; Statutory Appeal; Stay of recovery; Writ Appeal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 881 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11704/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: AL MANAMA RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED MANAM HOUSE, BUILDING NO. MP X 614 UMAYANALLOOR POST, KOLLAM 691 589 KERALA (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR A.K SABEER) BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED CYRIAC TOM RESPONDENT/S: 1 NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI 110 003 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECREETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001 SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No. 881/2021 -2- J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Adv.shameem Ahamed M.P and Standing Counsel Mr.Jose Joseph for parties. 2. The intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.11704 of 2021. 3. Writ petitioner is the appellant. The learned Single Judge through the judgment under appeal, having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly that Ext.P10 is an order of assessment against which the appellant has the remedy of statutory appeal, declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, however, granted one month time to appellant to prefer appeal against Ext.P10 assessment order. Hence the appeal. W.A. No. 881/2021 -3- 3. Adv.Shameem Ahamed tried to convince us, with a few dates and events to bring home the point that the assessment officer did not give effective opportunity to meet the contents in Ext.P8 show-cause notice. According to him, the pandemic circumstances which are prevalent in the state ought to have weighed both with the assessing officer firstly, for granting more time instead of passing an ex parte assessment order, and secondly, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside Ext.P10 and remitted the matter to Assessment Officer for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law. 4. Per contra the learned Standing Counsel argues that the series of notices issued would go to show that the argument that effective opportunity was not given to the appellant may not stand to scrutiny. He further argued that under the Income Tax Act, three-tier redressal mechanism is provided for and the writ remedy is not availed by a party or entertained by the W.A. No. 881/2021 -4- court as a matter of course. He submits, therefore, no exception to the observation to the learned single judge declining to exercise his jurisdiction could be noted. He prays for dismissing the appeal. We have also heard the learned counsel on the additional and alternative submission of the appellant that the remedy of appeal even if treated as effective and efficacious still the appellant assessee would be subjected to deposit substantial amount for stay and ward off recovery in terms of the assessment order. Through the judgment under appeal, the learned Single judge has stopped the recovery proceedings and kept in abeyance recovery for one month. After hearing both the counsel, we are convinced that the writ appeal could be disposed of as follows: a) The appellant files an appeal against Ext.P10 within two weeks from today by enclosing a copy of the instant judgment. W.A. No. 881/2021 -5- b) The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant within six months from the date of presentation. There shall be stay of recovery pursuant to Ext.P10 for six months two weeks from today. Writ appeal is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE JS "