M/S. FOUR STAR GRANITES (P) LTD., V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/38322/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Four Star Granites (P) Ltd., represented by its managing director, who filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner challenged the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, claiming that the long lapse of time since the relevant assessment years made it impossible to provide an effective defense. The petitioner sought clarity on the basis of the notices to respond effectively. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer, decided that the authorities must consider the petitioner's objections before finalizing the assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755076 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Section 148 of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; NISHA JOHN; R BHASKARA KRISHNAN; V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income Tax; Notices; Objections; Writ petition
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 38322 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. FOUR STAR GRANITES (P) LTD., KOOTTALA P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR - 680 652, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI .ANIYAN MATHEW. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RANGE - 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.38322 of 2018 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee, submitted his returns for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Later, the Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax issued the Exts.P1 and P2 notices. On receiving them, the petitioner submitted the Exts.P3 and P4 requests to the Assistant Commissioner. He wanted to know on what basis the department issued the notices under Section 148. According to the petitioner, if the reasons were supplied, he could give an effective reply. Then, the Assistant Commissioner issued Exts.P5 and P6 replies. Eventually, the petitioner also submitted Exts.P7 and P8 objections. 2. At any rate, the petitioner apprehends that before the authority could rule on the petitioner's objections, he will finalise the assessment proceedings. So the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has issued the Exts.P1 and P2 notices after a long lapse of time. With that lapse of time, it is impossible for the petitioner to provide an effective defence to the notices the department issued under Section 148. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to the Apex Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts WPC No.38322 of 2018 3 (India) Ltd. v Income Tax Officer1. 4. In response, the learned Senior Counsel, the Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to Exts.P7 and P8 objections. He asserts that the writ petition is based on mere apprehension. The authorities will consider the objections and rule on them before they finalise the proceedings, he adds. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the authorities will consider the petitioner's Exts.P7 and P8 objections, keeping in view, as the petitioner pleads, the Apex Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (india)'s case, and then finalise the proceedings. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 29.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 29.,03.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 20.04.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 20.04.2018 1 (2003) 259 ITR 0019 WPC No.38322 of 2018 4 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F.NO.ACIT/CIR- I(1)147/AAACF4639D/2018-19 DATED 05.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F.NO.ACIT/CIR- I(1)147/AAACF4639D/2018-19 DATED 05.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13. Css/ "