Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar V. Assessment Unit headed by Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ministry of India and Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)

WP(C)/10822/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar against the Income Tax Department, contesting the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner had not filed his income tax return for the relevant year despite engaging in substantial financial transactions. The Income Tax Department issued notices under various sections of the IT Act, leading to an assessment order which the petitioner challenged on grounds of improper notice and jurisdiction issues related to faceless assessment. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the notices and the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799398 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHIVAS GIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAGHUNATHAN NAGENDRAN; RISHAL SUDEVAN MAMIIYIL MUKKATH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Financial transactions; Financial transactions; Income Tax; Non-filing of return
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 139(1); 271F; 144B; 148A(d); 275; 149A(d)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10822 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: KOLLASRU KANDY DHANESH KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS KOLLARUKANDY SAROJINI NIVAS, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019 BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN; RISHAL.K SUDEVAN MAMIYIL MUKKATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT HEADED BY PRINCIPLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT, PIN - 673001 BY ADV KEERTHIVAS GIRI OTHER PRESENT: SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.10822/2024 -2- J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), has filed the present writ petition impugning the Ext.P7 Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the IT Act. The assessment involved in the present case is 2016-17. 2. The petitioner did not file the return of his income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. As per the information available with the Department, the petitioner, during the Financial Year 2015-16, relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17, has entered into financial transactions of huge proportions, which are already extracted in the Assessment Order in question. As the petitioner, despite entering into huge financial transactions of crores, did not file the return of income, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped W.P.(C) No.10822/2024 -3- assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. As a consequence, an order under Section 148A(d) came to be passed, and a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2023. 2.1 In response to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the petitioner filed return of his income on 24.04.2023 and declared a total income of Rs.1,67,33,860/-. Subsequent thereto, several notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1) were issued, the details of which have been given in the Assessment Order itself. The petitioner did not respond to the several notices which are issued to him, and therefore the assessment came to be completed in Ext.P7. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given ‘proper’ notice under Section 143 of the IT Act; no opportunity of hearing was given to him under Section 149A(d); and the Assessing Officer does not have W.P.(C) No.10822/2024 -4- jurisdiction in view of the faceless provisions incorporated in the IT Act with effect from 2022. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued notice and the notice is available in the web portal. This Court cannot believe the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no real-time alert was sent by e-mail and to the mobile number given by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department, inasmuch as there is no human intervention and these are automatic systems. Once a notice is issued, a real-time alert is sent to the mobile number given to the Department as well as the e-mail address. Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the first contention. 4.1 Once the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, there is no question of issuing further notice for an opportunity of hearing as the petitioner had not controverted the allegations in the notice W.P.(C) No.10822/2024 -5- issued under Section 148A of the Act. 4.2 So far as the question of faceless assessment is concerned, the assessment has been completed faceless. Prior to assessment, there is no requirement for faceless proceedings as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I find no substance in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE jjj W.P.(C) No.10822/2024 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10822/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148A[B] FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 09.02.2023 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S 148A[D] FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 31.03.2023 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 31.03.2023 Exhibit P-4 RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2016.17 FILED ON 24.04.2023 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 03.01.2024 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DTD 24.01.2024 TO EXT-P5 NOTICE Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 29.02.2024 Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE U/S 275 R/W SEC 271F AY 2016.17 DTD 29.02.2024 "