Sayed Muhammed M V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, North Block, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, North Block, New Delhi

WA/168/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sayed Muhammed M, the appellant, who challenged the assessment order and the subsequent appellate order concerning unexplained cash deposits in his account, under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The appellant did not file a return for the assessment year 2017-2018, leading to notices and a draft assessment order from the assessing authority. The appellant's explanations regarding the deposits were not accepted, resulting in a demand notice for a substantial amount. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed, and the subsequent writ petition was also dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the High Court. The court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to pursue the matter at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796493 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Statutory remedy; Unexplained cash deposit; Writ Appeal
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 250; 69A; 144B; 156

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 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 168 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 15.1.2024 in WP(C) 42235/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SAYED MUHAMMED M,AGED 40 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KASIM, TC 48/1016(7) NOOR MAHAL,OPP. EDAYAR BRIDGE, POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026 BY ADV C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC-P.R.AJITHKUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.168/2024 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 7th day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He preferred the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 assessment order passed under Section 147 r/w section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act (for short, the IT Act) and Ext.P11 appellate order passed under Section 250 of the IT Act. 2. The appellant is a businessman and an income tax assessee. He did not file return of his income for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessing authority noted several transactions of high value in the appellant's account, including cash deposits of crores of rupees during the aforementioned period. Hence, the assessing authority issued a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act to the appellant on 26/3/2021. But W.A.No.168/2024 -:3:- there was no response. On 30/10/2021, the assessing authority issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act with a detailed questionnaire. There was no response to the said notice also. Thereafter, the assessing authority issued Ext.P4 draft assessment order along with a show cause notice alleging that a cash deposit of Rs.1,15,03,870/-is seen in the account of the appellant. The appellant offered an explanation that he was providing tour operator services, and for the purpose of booking air tickets on behalf of his clients, he used his personal credit card, which his customers reimbursed. Hence, the amount he spent was not of a personal nature but incurred for business purposes. After considering the explanation offered, the assessing authority finalised the assessment order, finding an unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the IT Act for an amount of Rs.1,15,03,870/- and profit from business and profession as Rs.2,44,008/-. Ext.P6 is the assessment order. A demand notice under Section 156 of the IT Act was issued to the appellant for an amount of Rs.1,91,95,312/-. Ext.P7 is the W.A.No.168/2024 -:4:- demand notice. The appellant challenged Ext.P6 before the appellate authority. However, the appeal was dismissed as per the Ext.P11 order. Thereafter, the appellant challenged Exts.P6 and P11 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is challenging the said judgment, the appellant is before us. 3. We have heard Sri. Jojo C. A, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.R. Ajithkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. The appellant has chosen to challenge Ext.P6 assessment order before the First Appellate Authority at the first instance. The First Appellate Authority, on merits, dismissed the appeal. A further appeal is provided against the Ext.P11 order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant has rushed to this court without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy. The appellant challenged Exts.P6 and P11 orders mainly W.A.No.168/2024 -:5:- on factual grounds, which is in dispute. The disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the remedy open to the appellant is to approach the Tribunal. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "