JIJUJOSEPH JOSEPH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21456/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Jiju Joseph, the petitioner, who challenged a penalty order issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 42,24,835 for underreported income for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that since the assessment order for the same year was pending appeal, the penalty should not have been imposed. The court, however, found that the completion of the assessment allowed for the initiation of penalty proceedings, irrespective of the pending appeal on the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769125 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L.385]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; TELMA RAJU; SANGEETH JACOB; CHRISTINA PAUL; ARAVIND SREEKUMAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment year 2018-19; Penalty; Statutory remedies; Under-reported income; Writ petition
• Section: 274; 270A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21456 OF 2021 PETITIONER : JIJU JOSEPH JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS, PACHAKKANAM HOUSE, PULIYANMALA P.O., IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 515, KERALA. BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL ARAVIND SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 003. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21456 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C).No.21456 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 7th day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the Act), challenges an order issued under Section 270A of the Act imposing penalty of Rs.42,24,835/- being 50% of the tax for the under reported income relating to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Though statutory remedies are available in the form of appeal against Ext.P7 order of penalty, petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is intrinsically connected with the assessment order and the quantum of tax imposed under the assessment order. According to the petitioner, since the order of assessment issued against the petitioner for the year 2018-19 is pending consideration in appeal, imposition of penalty on an assessment which has not yet attained finality, is without authority. 3. I have heard the arguments of Adv.Anil D.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. WP(C) NO. 21456 OF 2021 3 4. On a consideration of the submissions made across the bar, it is understood that the order of assessment was passed on 26.03.2021 and the quantum of income for the relevant assessment year has already been assessed. Once the said assessment is completed, there is no prohibition in initiating proceedings for penalty under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act. Merely because an appeal against the said assessment order is pending consideration, the same is not a reason to defer initiation of proceedings for penalty under Section 270A of the Act. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the same will unnecessarily delay the proceeding under Section 270A of the Act which is not contemplated under the scheme of the statute. 5. In matters of taxation, this Court would be loath to interfere especially when statutory forums are available to redress the grievance of the assessees. The parameters when interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 has been restated even recently in the decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L.385]. The case of the petitioner does not come within those parameters. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty imposed, statutory remedies are available. The reasons put forth WP(C) NO. 21456 OF 2021 4 by the petitioner to overcome the statutory remedy of appeal is not tenable. Hence, the writ petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 21456 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21456/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM.35 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.4.2021 TO THE NOTICE OF THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE REPLY. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. "