MAHEW K. CHERIAN V. THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/3592/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Mathew K. Cherian, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam. The petitioner contested the order on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, despite having a right to appeal under the Act. The court examined whether the petitioner's reply to the notice was considered and whether a hearing was provided, concluding that the principles of natural justice were upheld.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755359 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: R RAMADAS
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Revision of Assessment; Self-assessment
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 56(2)(vii)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3592 of 2018 ------------------- PETITIONER(S) -------------- MATHEW K.CHERIAN, S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM. P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 018. BY ADV.SRI.R.RAMADAS. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 3592 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2017 FROM THE RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P .B.SURESH KUMAR,J ...................................................... W .P .(C).No.3592 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax, 1961 (the Act) on the rolls of the respondent. Proceedings have been initiated for revising the self assessment made by the petitioner under Section 143(3) of the Act and the petitioner has been issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 22.09.2016. The petitioner sent a reply to the notice under Section 143(2) on 26.12.2016. It is conceded that there was a hearing thereafter and later, the petitioner has been issued Ext.P1 notice by the respondent directing him to show cause why the sum of Rs.11,13,52,085/- referred to therein shall not be assessed as the income of the petitioner from other sources as provided for under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. The petitioner received Ext.P1 notice on 30.12.2017. It is his case that though he sent Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1 notice on 30.12.2017 itself, Ext.P3 order has been passed thereafter on the premise that the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P1 notice. The petitioner, therefore, challenges, Ext.P3 order in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India W .P .(C).No.3592 of 2018 : 2 : on the ground that the same is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, though the petitioner has a right of appeal under the Act against the said order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. Though there is a recital in Ext.P3 order that the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P1 notice, a close reading of Ext.P3 order indicates that the contention taken by the petitioner in Ext.P2 reply sent by him to Ext.P1 notice has been adverted to by the respondent in Ext.P3 order. Further, Ext.P3 order is one rendered after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. In the said circumstances, I do not find any justification for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 order on the ground that the same is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order under the statute. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE hmh "