CATHERINE THOMAS V. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/28222/2012

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the rectification of an income tax assessment order for the year 1989-90 against the petitioner, Catherine Thomas. Initially, the petitioner filed a rectification petition (Ext.P1) under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, which remained unaddressed. Subsequently, she received a notice (Ext.P2) proposing to rectify the assessment order due to a short levy of interest under Sections 234A and B. The petitioner requested detailed calculations of the proposed interest (Ext.P3), which were not provided, leading to the issuance of the rectified order (Ext.P4) and a demand notice (Ext.P5). The court's judgment focused on the procedural fairness and the right to be heard, emphasizing the need for the respondent to provide detailed calculations and allow the petitioner to contest the proposed changes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755884 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: BECHU THOMAS; NISHA JOHN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Interest Levy; Natural Justice; Rectification petition
• Section: 154; 234B; 234A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 28222 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- CATHERINE THOMAS, L/H OF SHRI.K.T.THOMAS, IC AMBER PARK, C.S.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I(I), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (SOUTH BLOCK), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28222 of 2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 26.1.2011 FILED BEFORE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.10.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.10.2011 SENT BY PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 NOTICE. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2012. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.10.2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28222 OF 2012(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2012 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. An assessment under the Income Tax Act against the petitioner for the year 1989-90 has been completed and on receipt of the assessment order, petitioner filed Ext.P1 application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. Orders have not been passed on that application. While so, she received Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent, proposing to rectify the assessment order and the mistake to be rectified is the short levy of interest under Section 234A and B of the Act at the time of assessment. On receipt of this notice, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request seeking to be provide with the detailed working of the interest. She was not given the details as sought for. While so, she received Ext.P4 order under Section 154 of the Act, along with Ext.P5 demand notice. It is on receipt of WPC.No. 28222/2012 :2 : Exts.P4 and P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 application filed by her for rectification of the assessment order in question is still pending. Therefore, the respondent should consider Ext.P1 application with notice to her and pass orders thereon. 4. As far as Ext.P4 rectified order passed pursuant to Ext.P2 notice is concerned, Ext.P3 shows that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner sought detailed working of the interest that is proposed to be levied on her. It is her case that despite the receipt of Ext.P3, respondent did not furnish the details sought for and Ext.P4 under Section 154 was passed. 5. In my view, Ext.P4 order passed without furnishing the details sought for by the petitioner deprived her of an opportunity to file her objection to Ext.P2 and therefore Ext.P4 is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason I set aside Ext.P4 oder and consequently Ext.P5 demand notice also. Respondent is directed to furnish the detailed working of the interest proposed in Ext.P2 to the petitioner on WPC.No. 28222/2012 :3 : the production of copy of this judgment. Once the details are furnished, the petitioner will also be allowed to file her objection to Ext.P2 and will be afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereafter a consolidated order on Exts.P1 and P2 will be passed by the respondent. Writ Petition is disposed of . (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ "