ANEESA KURUKKAN MULAYIL, V. UNION OF INDIA,

WA/97/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Aneesa Kurukkan Mulayil, the appellant, who challenged the assessment order (Ext.P9) passed by the income tax authorities for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant claimed that her reply (Ext.P8) to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not considered, and she was not served with a draft assessment order as required under Section 144B of the Act. The court found that the assessment order was passed without considering the appellant's reply and without issuing a draft assessment order, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724481 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S MANU; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA JOSON; K MATHAI; KURYAN THOMAS; M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR; PAULOSE ABRAHAM
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Draft Assessment Order; Electronic Filing; Income Tax; Natural Justice
• Section: 148; 142(1); 144B

Judgement Text

"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. 97 OF 2024 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28428/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ANEESA KURUKKAN MULAYIL, AGED 50 YEARS MOOTHAN MUSLIARAVIDA,PERIGATHUR, PULLOORKKARA, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670672 BY ADVS. RAJA KANNAN JOSON MANAVALAN K.JOHN MATHAI KURYAN THOMAS M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110004 2 ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KONNOTHUMCHAL, HOVVA P.O., KANNUR, PIN – 670006 BY SRI.S.MANU, CGC BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.97/2024 ..2.. JUDGMENT SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2024 in WP(C) No.28428 of 2022. 2. The only issue to be considered in this writ appeal is whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice while passing Ext.P9 assessment order. The case of the appellant is that before passing Ext.P9 assessment order, the authority concerned has not considered Ext.P8 reply filed by her pursuant to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). It is a further case that before passing Ext.P9 assessment order, the appellant was not served with a draft assessment order as contemplated under Section 144B of the Act. 3. The relevant assessment year is 2013-14. According to the appellant, due to glitches in the portal of the department, she was prevented from responding to Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, by filing a return. WA No.97/2024 ..3.. Thereafter, several requests were made regarding the difficulty faced by her in filing the return. Subsequently, to Ext.P7 notice dated 03.09.2021 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the second respondent, the appellant had filed Ext.P8 reply online. However, Ext.P9 order was passed ex parte. In Ext.P9, it is stated that there was no response from the assessee despite serving Ext.P7 notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. 4. The appellant produced Ext.P8 reply filed by her pursuant to Ext.P7 notice dated 03.09.2021. The Respondents have not denied the receipt of Ext.P8 reply. Further, no reason was offered in the impugned assessment order for the non issuance of the draft assessment order. Admittedly, Ext.P9 assessment order was passed without considering Ext.P8 reply filed by the appellant. It is the specific case of the appellant that she had filed Ext.P8 reply on receipt of Ext.P7 notice. Non consideration of Ext.P8 reply filed by the appellant amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, as mandated under Section 144B of the Act, a draft assessment order ought to have been served on the appellant before passing Ext.P9 assessment order. It also appears that WA No.97/2024 ..4.. there were glitches on the portal of the department for quite a long time. That may be the reason for the department escaping notice of Ext.P8 reply filed by the appellant and coming to the conclusion that there was no response from the assessee pursuant to Ext.P7 notice. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge failed to consider these issues raised in the writ petition. 5. Hence, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Ext.P9 assessment order has to be set aside and the appellant is to be given one more opportunity to substantiate her case. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed, as follows; A.Ext.P9 assessment order dated 21.09.2021 is set aside. B.There shall be a direction to the respondents to activate the link of the department enabling the appellant to participate in the assessment proceedings and for filing additional reply/response, if any, to Ext.P7 notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. C.The assessment proceedings shall be finalized by the respondents within a period of two months thereafter, WA No.97/2024 ..5.. after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard, untrammelled by the observations and findings in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. SD/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE SD/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/- "