GURUDAS VIDHYADHARAN V. THE UNION OF INDIA,

WP(C)/1000/2020

AI Insights

The petitioner, Gurudas Vidhyadharan, challenged an order of assessment (Ext.P3) issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the assessment was made without a personal hearing, despite a specific request for one in response to the initial notice (Ext.P1). The court acknowledged the violation of natural justice principles and the availability of an alternate remedy, emphasizing that such a violation justifies invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment order and remitted the case for a fresh assessment after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722227 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C G PREETHA; CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR; K JOHN MATHAI; JOSON MANAVALAN; KURYAN THOMAS; PAULOSE ABRAHAM
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Certiorari; Certiorari; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1000 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER: GURUDAS VIDHYADHARAN AGED 59 YEARS K.C.GURU VIDHYA, VIKAS NAGAR 119, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM-691021. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691001. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC -R1 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT The case projected in this writ petition (Civil) is as follows:- The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of assessment passed under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complaint is that the order of assessment (Ext.P3) was passed by the 2nd respondent assessing authority without granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, despite specific request for such a personal hearing made in Ext.P2 reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 order is challenged before this Court, despite availability of alternate remedy owing to the fact that Ext.P3 order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in view of the settled law that alternate remedy would not operate as a bar in invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 3 India, when there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed instant Writ petition with the following prayers: i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order of assessment and the accompanying demand notice issued by 2nd respondent and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction. ii) Issue a writ or mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to complete the assessment proceedings after granting the petitioner a full and proper opportunity of personal hearing. iii) To grant a stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to Ext.P3 order and the accompanying demand notice. iv) To grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Ho'ble Court may deem just and necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case. v) To allow this writ petition (Civil) with costs to the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing appearing for the petitioner, Smt.C.G.Preetha, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union Bank of India and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel appearing W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 4 for Income Tax Officer. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned Ext.P3 order has been passed, in blatant violation of requirement of natural justice as reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner was denied in spite of the request made by the petitioner in that regard as per Ext.P2. It is not in serious dispute that the 2nd respondent has not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before rendering the decision as per Ext.P3 in spite of the request in that regard made by the petitioner as per Ext.P2. 4. Accordingly, solely on this ground and without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P3 order will stand set aside and the matter in relation to assessment thereto will stand remitted to the 2nd respondent for consideration and decision afresh. The 2nd respondent will issue notice to the petitioner and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner thorough authorised representative or counsel if any, will pass fresh orders W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 5 in the matter of the assessment in question in accordance with law, without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the respondent officer. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE KAS W.P(C). No. 1000 of 2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE "