Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Trivandrum

WA/138/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai, the appellant, who sold 50 cents of land for ₹30,00,000 in 2016. The Income Tax Officer issued notices under Sections 133(6) and 148A of the Income Tax Act, seeking information and later showing cause for reopening the assessment for the year 2016-2017. The appellant contested the show cause notice, arguing it was not maintainable as the transaction did not exceed ₹50,00,000, the threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The respondent's order to issue a notice under Section 148 was challenged but initially set aside by a Single Judge due to lack of a hearing, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The appellant, aggrieved by this remand, filed a writ appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796510 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P G JAYASHANKAR; KEERTHIVAS GIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASWIN GOPAKUMAR; ANWIN GOPAKUMAR; SARANYA; ADITYA VENUGOPALAN; NIKITHA PAULSON; MAHESH CHANDRAN; SHALLET SAM
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Land sale; Show cause notice; Duplication of Transactions
• Section: 148; 133(6); 149; 148A

Judgement Text

"W.A.No.138/2024 -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 138 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2023 IN WP(C) 23174/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DINESH DINAKARAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. P. DINAKARAN PILLAI, MEKKAPLATHARA, PAZHAVADI STREET, NEDUMANGAD, PIN - 695541 BY ADVS.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, SARANYA BABU ADITYA VENUGOPALAN, NIKITHA SUSAN PAULSON MAHESH CHANDRAN SHALLET K. SAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER THE OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), TRIVANDURM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PEROORKADA, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695003 BY .ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR KEERTHIVAS GIRI SC-P.G.JAYASHANKER. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.138/2024 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He sold 50 cents of land belonging to him in Vilappil Village in Thiruvananthapuram on 27.2.2016 for a total sale consideration of ₹30,00,000/-. On 7.2.2023, the respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to the appellant under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act calling for information on his income tax return for the assessment year 2016-2017. The appellant did not give any reply. Thereafter, the respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice to the appellant under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, requiring him to show cause as to why a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act should not be issued. The appellant gave Ext.P4 reply to the said notice, mainly contending that Ext.P3 show cause notice was not maintainable as Section 149 of the Income Tax Act specifically provided that unless entries in the books of account which have escaped assessment of more than ₹50,00,000/-, no notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act can be issued for an assessment after 3 years have been elapsed from the end of the assessment year. According to the W.A.No.138/2024 -:3:- appellant, since the total sale consideration was only ₹30,00,000/-, invocation of Section 148 was not justified. Thereafter, the respondent passed Ext.P5 order repelling the contentions raised by the appellant in Ext.P4 reply and holding that the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant challenged Ext.P5 order before the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Single Judge found that Ext.P5 order was passed without hearing the appellant. Accordingly it was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after hearing the appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before us. 3. We have heard Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P .G. Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole reason for re-opening the assessment is based on the information received from the INSIGHT Portal and not on an independent inquiry conducted by the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that though the transaction made by the appellant was only for a sum of ₹30,00,000/-, the respondent for the first time in Ext.P5 order stated that there are two transactions in the said financial year, each of ₹30,00,000/- and it is nothing but duplication. The question whether W.A.No.138/2024 -:4:- there was a single transaction or two transactions in the relevant financial year or not is a disputed question of fact. While the appellant states that there was only one transaction, the respondent maintains the stand that there are two transactions. The said question of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Hence, we find that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in remitting the matter to the respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the appellant. The appellant can raise all his contentions before the respondent. The writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "