M.S. Sajitha Moitheen V. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NAFAC) and Income Tax Officer, Ward I & TPS, Tirur

WA/2109/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M.S. Sajitha Moitheen, the appellant, who challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge regarding the reopening of her income tax assessment for the year 2019-2020. The reopening was based on a notice issued under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which alleged that a transaction involving `43,45,000 had escaped assessment. The appellant had previously responded to the show cause notice and provided supporting documents, but the Assessing Officer decided to reopen the assessment. The Single Judge had dismissed her initial writ petition, granting her time to respond to the notice. The appellant then filed this writ appeal, which was also dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691457 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P R AJITHKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: LATHA ANAND; S VISHNU ARIKKATTIL
• Keywords: Assessment Reopening; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Show cause notice; Writ Appeal
• Section: 147; 148; 148A(d); 148A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/22ND AGRAHAYANA,1945 WA NO. 2109 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 13034/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M.S.SAJITHA MOITHEEN, AGED 43 YEARS NO 174, THAYYIL KACHINIKKAD, MAKKARAPPARAMBIL, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676507., PIN - 676507 BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NAFAC), MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NAFAC)., PIN - 110001 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I & TPS, TIRUR, NO. 20/1240, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR- 676101, PIN - 676101 SC: P R AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.2109/2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.13034/2023 dated 24/11/2023. 2. The appellant is an assessee under the Income T ax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). She was issued with Ext.P1 notice u/s 148A of the Act. The said notice was issued based on the relevant information received by the Assessing Officer that income in respect of the transaction of the appellant for `43,45,000/- had escaped the assessment. The appellant was required to show cause why a notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued to her. The appellant gave reply to the show cause notice. She also produced documents in support of her defence. After considering the objections, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, holding that the assessment WA No.2109/2023 -:3:- for 2019-20 requires reopening under section 147. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the appellant was issued with Ext.P4 notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant challenged Exts.P3 and P4 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition granting the appellant fifteen days' time to file response to Ext.P4 notice and to file return as directed. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us. 3. We have heard Smt. Latha Anand, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R.Ajithkumar, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The Assessing Authority, after considering the objections given by the appellant, formed an opinion that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment and therefore the assessment order for the assessment year 2019-2020 requires to be reopened. It cannot be said that the reopening of the assessment ordered by the Assessing Authority is without jurisdiction. The appellant is free to take up all the contentions in response to Ext.P4 notice. Instead of opting for that remedy, the appellant has rushed to this court. We find no merit in the writ appeal, and WA No.2109/2023 -:4:- it is dismissed accordingly. However, fifteen days' time granted by the learned Single Judge to file response to Ext.P4 notice and to file return is extended for a period of one month from today. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp "