SREENI PARAMESWARAN, V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/7698/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sreeni Parameswaran, the petitioner, who is the Director of a company and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought to quash the order Ext P2 issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had rejected his appeal against an earlier assessment order for the year 2008-09. The petitioner contended that he was not served any notice regarding the appeal hearing, leading to a violation of natural justice. However, the respondents provided evidence of multiple communications sent to the petitioner's registered email, contradicting his claims. The court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the petitioner was indeed served with the necessary notices and thus dismissed the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748702 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; R SREEJITH; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 7698 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SREENI PARAMESWARAN, AGED 44 YEARS 7/42 - B5, MYSTIC BELLS VILLA NO -1, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682308 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RANGE 2, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS, PIN – 110001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.7698/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 22nd day of June,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to quash Ext P2 order passed by the second respondent. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the Director of a company, which is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first respondent had completed the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 by Ext P1 order. Against the above order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected by Ext P2. Ext P2 is illegal and arbitrary. The second respondent had passed Ext P2 order on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any reply on the various hearing dates. In fact, the petitioner was not served with any intimation regarding the posting of the appeal. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Although the petitioner has a remedy W.P.(C)No.7698/2023 -:3:- to file a further appeal, as there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Ext P2 and all further proceedings pursuant to it may be quashed. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the assertions in the writ petition. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation in the writ petition, that the petitioner was not served with any notice is false and baseless. The respondents have produced Exts R1(a) to R1(e) communications to substantiate that the notices were served on the petitioner through his registered e-mail id. Similarly, the appeal order was also served on the petitioner as evidenced by Ext R1(f). There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard; Sri.Harisankar V . Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. W.P.(C)No.7698/2023 -:4:- Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and after appreciating Exts R1(a) to R1(e) communications, I have no hesitation in my mind that the petitioner was served with notice before Ext P2 order was passed. 6. In the above conspectus, I find no justifiable reason or ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/22.06.23 //True copy// P .A.To Judge W.P.(C)No.7698/2023 -:5:- APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DTD. 30-12- 2010 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 02-08-2022 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODNENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DTD. 20-01-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 30-09-2022 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 08-02-2023 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22-02-2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/S250 FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 16.08.2021 EXHIBIT R1 (B) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/S 250 FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 01.09.2021 EXHIBIT R1(C) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/250 FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 30.03.2022 EXHIBIT R1(D) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/S250 FOR AY2008-09 DATED 29.04.2022 EXHIBIT R1(E) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/S250 FOR AY2008-09 DATED 18.07.2022 EXHIBIT R1(F) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF NOTICE U/S 250 FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 24.12.2020 EXHIBIT R1(G) SCREENSHOT SHOWING DELIVERY STATUS OF THE ORDER U/S 250 DATED 02.08.2022 FOR AY 2008-09 "