JOHN GEEVARGHESE KURUVILA V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/4230/2019

AI Insights

John Geevargheese Kuruvila, the petitioner, challenged the assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, claiming they violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that despite his diligent conduct and the complexities of his case, he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself after submitting his replies. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his case. The court examined the procedural history, including multiple hearings and submissions by the petitioner's representative, and concluded that the petitioner was not denied a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754958 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, 1989 (1) KLT 909
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Denial of opportunity; Natural Justice; Inadequate opportunity

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 PETITIONER: JOHN GEEVARGHESE KURUVILA AGED 51 YEARS, KOCHANAYATHU MALAYIL, KADAMBANAD NORTH, NELLIMUKAL P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-695 551. NOW RESIDING AT P.O.BOX.NO.5169, DAMMAM 31422, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POA SHRI.GEEVARGHESE KURUVILA, RESIDING AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, AAYAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695 003. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, 4TH FLOOR, ANNEXE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee, suffered the Exts.P1, P2 and P3 assessment orders for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 respectively. He assails those orders in this writ petition, on the grounds that they suffer from the vise of violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Sri. T. M Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel, ably supplemented by Smt. Divya Ravindran, has strenuously contended that the petitioner has all along conducted himself bona fide and with diligence. According to the learned Senior Counsel, whatever opportunity the petitioner had, that was proved inadequate because of the complications involved in the case. To elaborate, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that after the petitioner’s submitted the Ext.P6 series of replies, the assessing authority has not provided further opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself. 3. So the learned Senior Counsel wants the Court to set aside the Exts.P1, P2 and P3 assessment orders and remand the matter to -3- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 the assessing authority, with a further direction that the authority once again hear the petitioner and then pass orders. To support his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, 1989 (1 ) KLT 909. 4. Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, has taken me through the record and asserted that the petitioner has had more than ample opportunity to defend himself in proceedings. According to him, denial of an opportunity differs from inadequate opportunity. Even if the petitioner's allegations were taken on the face value, they would only concern the merits. But, by no stretch, can this Court, according to Sri.Joseph, conclude there has been a denial of opportunity, much less any violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Heard Sri. T. M. Sridharan, the learned Senior Counsel, and Smt. Divya Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 6. To begin with, on 06.12.2018 the assessing authority issued -4- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 a show-cause notice about the transactions that took place during the financial year 2012-2013. Later, based on the notice of hearing, the petitioner authorised its auditor to appear before the Assessing Authority. He did appear before the Assessing Authority on 12.12.2018, on 20.12.2018, and eventually on 24.12.2018. 7. The petitioner's representative has not only appeared before the Assessing Authority but also placed all the relevant material. Then on 28.12.2018, the Assessing Authority passed the impugned orders. 8. In the above background of chronological events, Smt. Divya Ravindran has contended that after the petitioner’s submitting the Ext.P6 reply, the Assessing Authority ought to have given one more opportunity of hearing; instead, he passed the orders straight away. 9. Seen from the record, the petitioner's Ext.P6 reply contains no further request from the petitioner that he be given another opportunity of hearing. I reckon after hearing the petitioner's representative on more than one occasion and after going through -5- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 the petitioner's reply and the material he produced, the Assessing Authority passed the impugned orders. In the name of additional and extended opportunities, one cannot expect the authorities to prolong the matter in perpetuity. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, denial of opportunity differs from inadequate opportunity. Hear I reckon, even the latter contention cannot be urged. 10. Now I turn my attention to the decision the petitioner has relied on. A Division Bench of this Court in K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, 1989 (1 ) KLT 909 , has on facts observed: “In the counter affidavit dated 4th august, 1987 filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that a pre-assessment notice dated 1-2-1983 estimating the income was served on the assesse on 25-2-1983. the last date for filing reply to the proposals made in the pre-assessment notice was on 3-3-1983. Sri. M.J Udayavarma Raja, a sales tax practitioner, filed a petition date 7-3-1983 on behalf of the petitioner and that petition was received on 9-3-1983 after the assessment c2828ompleted on 3-31983. It is accordingly stated that the objections filed on 9-3-1983 could not be completed before the assessment orders were passed on 3-3-1983. the pre- assessment notice required the assessee to file objections onor before 3-31983. the notice was served on the assessee only on 25-2-1983. the assessee was given only 6 days' time to file objections to the proposal s contained in the per-asssessment notice. The time allowed was too short and the assessment orders were passed on 3-3-1983 even before the expiry.” -6- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 11. I understand that the learned Division Bench considered the temporal aspect present in that case: the petitioner there was given only 6 days to file its reply. And the court has found it to be inadequate. The judgment, in fact, concerns no extended opportunity after many rounds of hearing. 12. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Nevertheless, I leave it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority if so advised. No order on costs. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE JS -7- WP(C).No. 4230 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.12.2018 GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS. "