Shaju Pachelil Pathrose V. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, National Assessment Centre, New Delhi and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ayakkar Bhavan, Old Railway Station Road, Kochi and The Income Tax Officer, Muvattupuzha

WA/23/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shaju Pachelil Pathrose, the appellant, who is engaged in the business of arranging the purchase of spices for inter-state dealers. His income tax assessment for the year 2016-17 was reopened due to high-value transactions noted during 2015. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice, which the appellant failed to respond to within the stipulated and extended time. The appellant challenged the subsequent assessment order in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal. The court found that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to respond but failed to do so, thus dismissing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679744 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ABRAHAM MARKOS; AIBEL MATHEW; SIBY JOSEPH; ISAAC THOMAS; JOHN VITHAYATHIL; P G CHANDAPILLAI; ABRAHAM JOSEPH; KODANTHARA
• Keywords: Extension of time; High value transactions; Income tax assessment; Natural Justice; Show cause notice
• Section: 143(3)

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 FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 23 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 20400/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SHAJU PACHELIL PATHROSE, AGED 57 YEARS XI/276A PACHELIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P O.,VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS AIBEL MATHEW SIBY ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS JOHN VITHAYATHIL P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KOCHI, PIN - 682018 WA No.23/2024 -:2:- 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 OTHER PRESENT: SC-P.R.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.23/2024 -:3:- 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.20400/2023 dated 8/12/2023. 2. The appellant is engaged in the business of arranging the purchase of spices for inter-state dealers. The appellant’s income tax assessment for the year 2016-17 was reopened on the ground that he made high-value transactions during the period 1/1/2015 to 31/12/2015. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice dated 3/5/2023 to the appellant, giving three days’ time to respond. The appellant filed an application for extension of time till 20/5/2023 to give the reply. In the meanwhile, the assessing officer issued a second show cause notice dated 17/5/2023 that was identical in all respects to the earlier notice with a direction to respond to the same within two days. The appellant sought a further time extension till 2/6/2023. WA No.23/2024 -:4:- However, Ext.P11 assessment order was passed on 24/5/2023, holding that there was no response from the appellant to the show cause notice, and accordingly, the proposal was confirmed. The appellant challenged Ext.P11 before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the same as per the impugned judgment. 3. We have heard Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R.Ajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The first show cause notice was issued on 3/5/2023, giving the appellant three days’ time to respond. The appellant sought time till 20/5/2023. The records would show that the assessing officer virtually allowed the said request. Since the second notice dated 17/5/2023 was identical to the earlier notice but with a different date thereon and required the appellant to respond to the notice before 20/5/2023. Again, the appellant asked for time and did not file a reply. Thus, the appellant admittedly did not file any reply to the show cause notice even within the extended period of time sought for by him. Therefore, there is no substance to the contention of the appellant that there is a WA No.23/2024 -:5:- violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, giving liberty to the appellant to file a statutory appeal within a period of fifteen days before the appellate authority. We find no merit in the writ appeal, and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we extend the fifteen days’ time the learned Single Judge granted to prefer appeal and the stay petition till 31/1/2024. The appellate authority shall consider the stay application within a period of two months thereafter. Till orders are passed on the stay application or the appeal and the order communicated to the appellant, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant pursuant to Ext.P11 assessment order. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp "