ARUN THOMAS, V. UNION OF INDIA,

WA/93/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arun Thomas, the appellant, who challenged the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contentions raised by the appellant included the non-existence of digital signatures on the notices, the failure to consider the option of video conferencing, and the legality of the re-opening of the assessment. The High Court of Kerala, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, dismissed the appeal, suggesting that the appellant could pursue these issues in an appeal before the appropriate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724515 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: KURYAN MANAVALAN; M NAMBIAR; PAULOSE ABRAHAM; RAJAKANNAN
• Keywords: Digital Signatures; Re-opening of assessment; Video conferencing
• Section: 147; 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. 91 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN WP(C) 18293/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ARUN THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, KANNATTU BABY MEMORIAL BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR , RESIDING AT KANNATTU HOUSE, PERISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR., PIN – 689 126 BY ADVS. KURYAN THOMAS JOSON MANAVALAN K.JOHN MATHAI M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689 101 3 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 003 WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..2.. ADV. JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.93/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..3.. 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. 93 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN WP(C) 18292/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ARUN THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, KANNATTU BABY MEMORIAL BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR- 689121, RESIDING AT KANNATTU HOUSE, PERISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR-689 126. BY ADVS. KURYAN THOMAS JOSON MANAVALAN M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, T.K. ROAD, THIRUVALLA 689101., PIN – 689 101 3 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..4.. 003 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WA.91/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..5.. J U D G M E N T A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. These intra-court appeals arise from the order of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the assessment order completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Essentially, the petitioner urged three contentions. One is that the Digital Signatures put on the notices are non-existence and therefore, the impugned proceedings are bad in law. Secondly, it was held that though the appellant/petitioner opted for video conferencing, that was not considered before passing the orders. The third contention is that re-opening of the assessment is illegal. 3. We, prima facie, do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned as the same is rightly turned down by the learned Single Judge. If that be so, the petitioner is free to urge all these contentions by way of an appeal before the competent authority. WA Nos.91 of 2024 and 93 of 2024 ..6.. With the above observations, these appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE PR "