PULIYASSERY SASIDHARAN V. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/11311/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Puliyassery Sasidharan, the petitioner, who challenged the order of assessment (Ext.P5) for the assessment year 2017-18 issued under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to faceless assessments. The petitioner argued that he had requested an adjournment to submit a reply to the draft assessment order (Ext.P1), which was acknowledged (Ext.P4) but not considered before finalizing the assessment. The respondent, represented by the Income Tax Department, contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to respond, including notices sent via speed post and email. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and provided an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the draft assessment order before finalizing the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751192 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; SREEJITH NAIR; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Adjournment request; Draft Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Notice under Section 142
• Section: 144B; 142

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11311 OF 2022 PETITIONER: PULIYASSERY SASIDHARAN AGED 62 YEARS 45, RAGHAVAM, NEAR MERCY COLLEGE, VENKITESWARA GARDENS, PALAKKAD-678641. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON SREEJITH R.NAIR K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001. BY ADVS. P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.11311/2022 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 issued under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act (Faceless Assessment). 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P1 draft assessment order, the petitioner requested for time to submit a reply, as is evident from Exts.P2 and P3. It is submitted that despite asking for an adjournment almost immediately after receiving Ext.P1 and despite the fact that the same was acknowledged by Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order of assessment was issued on 07.3.2022 without noticing the fact that the petitioner had requested for an adjournment. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent department would contend that every possible opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is submitted that prior to the transfer of files to the Faceless Assessment Centre, the petitioner had been issued with notice under Section 142 which had been served on the petitioner by speed post. It is submitted that the delivery of notice earlier by speed post was on account of the fact that the petitioner failed to respond to a notice sent via email. It is submitted that the petitioner is purposefully delaying the proceedings and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief under Article 226 W.P.(C)No.11311/2022 3 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal against Ext.P5 order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department and taking note of Exts.P2, P3 and P4, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to respond to Ext.P1 draft assessment order before the proceedings are finalised against him. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand set aside with a direction to the respondent to provide a link to enable the petitioner to upload his reply. If the petitioner submits a reply within five days from the date on which the link is provided to him, the assessment shall be completed afresh after considering the reply given by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the same is requested for. If the petitioner does not submit a reply within five days from the date on which a link is provided to him, as above, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment and in that event Ext.P5 will be treated as restored. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.11311/2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11311/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE WEBPAGE OF THE E- MAIL. Exhibit P4 COPY OF SYSTEM GENERATED E-MAIL. Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. "