Parisons Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)

WP(C)/12064/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Parisons Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., represented by its director N.K. Khalid, as the petitioner, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Kozhikode, as the respondent. The core issue was the denial of an adequate opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine a third-party witness whose statements were relied upon in reopening an assessment. The High Court referenced a similar case (W.P(C) No.12094/2014) decided on 03.06.2014, where the same issue was addressed. The court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural fairness concerning the cross-examination opportunity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799135 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P(C) No.12094/2014
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C P MOHAMMED NIAS
• Keywords: Assessment Reopening; Cross Examination; Cross-examination; Third party witness

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 12064 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- M/S.PARISONS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD., REGD.OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT -673 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, N.K.KHALID. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT : ---------------------------- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN (NORTH BLOCK), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 12064 of 2014 (G) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 4.5.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.11.2013 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2013 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE PETITIONER EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH FROM M.P.GANGADHARAN ON 17.1.2011 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH FROM M.P.GANGADHARAN ON 4.3.2013 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH FROM M.P.GANGADHARAN ON 20.1.2014. EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 4.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 21.2.2014 EXT.P-12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2014 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.2014 EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2014 OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, CALICUT. EXT.P-15: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.3.2014 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P-16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.2014 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P-17: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.3.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT EXT.P-18: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.3.2014 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 12064 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 5th June, 2014 J U D G M E N T The sole question which this Court is called upon to decide is as to the denial of an adequate opportunity to the petitioner, an assessee; insofar as not having been provided with a fair chance, to cross examine the third party witness, whose statements are sought to be relied on in re-opening an assessment. 2. The issue has been considered and decided in W.P(C) No.12094/2014 dated 03.06.2014, which raised identical question. The findings shall verbatim apply herein also. Ext.P17 order passed by the Assessing Officer, hence, is set aside. Needless to say, this Court has not looked into the merits of the order. Proceedings shall commence from the stage at which it has been declared to be bad by this Court. The third party shall be WP(C).12064/14 2 summoned and the petitioner given adequate opportunity to cross examine the said witness. Same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Final orders shall be passed only after such opportunity for cross- examination has been afforded, effectively. Writ petition allowed leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge jma //true copy// P.A to Judge "