M/S. ELIAS & CO. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/1009/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Elias & Co., represented by its managing partner Chakkiath Joseph Antony, who filed a Writ Appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition challenging an appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appellant had previously contested an income tax assessment for the year 2013-2014, which included additions to their taxable income. After paying a disputed tax amount and submitting various requests for time to present their case, the NFAC rejected their appeal without considering a request for additional time. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the appellant has an alternative remedy through an appeal, which led to the filing of this Writ Appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676205 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; R SREEJITH; K MENON
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Faceless Appeal; Income tax assessment; Writ Appeal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WA NO. 1009 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 9298/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: M/S. ELIAS & CO. BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHAKKIATH JOSEPH ANTONY, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1), NON-CORPORATE, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SC: ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W .A. No.1009 of 2023 2 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P ., JJ ............................................................ W .A. No.1009 of 2023 ........................................................... Dated this the 7th day of June, 2023 JUDGMENT Mohammed Nias.C.P . J. The Appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent, has filed this Writ Appeal. The appellant contended that, by Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent had finalised the assessment for the year 2013-2014, against which Ext.P2 appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority, challenging the additions made to the taxable income. An amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also paid towards the disputed tax during the pendency of the appeal. Later, the appeal was transferred to the 2nd respondent, who issued Ext.P3 notice, in response to which the appellant uploaded the necessary details by Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 notice dated 12.01.2023, the appellant was directed to upload the details for the final hearing, and since the appellant required more time in view of the long pendency of the matter, by Ext.P6 letter dated 19.01.2023, three weeks' time was sought for. However, by Ext.P7 order, the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal without considering the prayer made in Ext.P6. This was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who held that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against the order impugned and thus closed W .A. No.1009 of 2023 3 the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the appellate order. 2. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rejection of Ext.P6 by Ext.P7 has resulted in losing an opportunity to argue the first appeal on merits. It is also the submission that Ext.P6 request was made on 19.01.2023, and declining the request, orders were passed on 30.01.2023 by Ext.P7. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent, we do not think any interference is warranted with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy by way of an appeal, and no circumstance warrants this Court to entertain a Writ Appeal against the order that relegated him to the alternative remedy. We do not find any error in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P ., JUDGE okb/ W .A. No.1009 of 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WA 1009/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCED BY THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF FACELESS APPEAL SCHEME, 2020 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DTD. 25-09-2020 "