THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, V. K. ABDUL MAJEED,

WA/159/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, which quashed the orders and notices issued for re-assessment of income for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2019-20. The writ petitioner, K. Abdul Majeed, represented by his power of attorney holder, Prasad Thottiyil, challenged the orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice, as they were passed without a personal hearing. The High Court's decision emphasized the necessity of a personal hearing in such cases, aligning with the precedent set in a similar case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739008 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (2024 KHC OnLine 28)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K J ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P G JAYASHANKAR; JOSE JOSEPH; G KEERTHIVAS
• Keywords: Income Tax; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Re-assessment
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

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 MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 159 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.14993 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN WPC: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, 2ND FLOOR, TARIFF BAZAR, OPP. TOWN HALL, CHEMBRA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101 BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR JOSE JOSEPH G.KEERTHIVAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: K. ABDUL MAJEED,AGED 46 YEARS S/O.K.MOHAMMED, KAMBRATH HOUSE, KALPAKACHERI, RANDATHANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PRASAD THOTTIYIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN THOTTIYIL,RESIDING AT THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KODAKKALINGAL, CHULLIPARA P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676510 ADV.K.J.ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.159/24 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The Revenue is in appeal before us impugning the judgment dated 21.12.2023 of a learned Single Judge in W.P .(C).No.14993 of 2023. Since a detailed narration of the facts of the petitioner's case in the writ petition is given in the impugned judgment, we choose not to reiterate those in this judgment since the appeal of the Revenue lies in a very narrow compass. 2. In the writ petition, the challenge of the writ petitioner was to Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Income T ax Officer Ward-2, Tirur, in terms of Section 148A(d) of the Income T ax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act'] and the consequential notices [Exts.P8 and P9] issued to the writ petitioner by the said Officer under Section 148 of the IT Act proposing a re-assessment of the income for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2019-20. WA No.159/24 -:3:- 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that the appellant herein proceeded to pass Exts.P6 and P7 orders without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as mandated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. It was therefore contended that Exts.P6 and P7 orders were vitiated on account of the non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, and consequently, Exts.P8 and P9 notices too were vitiated in law. 4. The learned Single Judge found that inasmuch as Section 148A of the IT Act contemplated the provision of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the non-providing of a personal hearing to the assessee vitiated the impugned orders and consequential notices. The said orders and notices were therefore quashed, and the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the appellant herein on or before 10.01.2024 with all relevant documents in its possession for being heard. It is challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge; the appellant is before us. 5. We have heard Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned WA No.159/24 -:4:- Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.J.Abraham,the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 6. The appellant is aggrieved only to the limited extent wherein the learned Single Judge held that personal hearing is mandatory in an enquiry under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The learned standing counsel for the appellant Sri.P .G.Jayasankar submitted that considering the nature of the proceedings, the scheme of the statute and the language of the provisions, the assessee is not required to be given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. The question whether affording a personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory in an enquiry under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act came up for consideration recently before the Division Bench of this Court in Income T ax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited (2024 KHC OnLine 28). It was held that Section 148A of the IT Act contemplates that the assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard and that opportunity must include the right of personal hearing as well. The dictum WA No.159/24 -:5:- laid down in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Appeal as devoid of merit. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp "