VINODKUMAR A.C V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5

WP(C)/10530/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Vinodkumar A.C., the petitioner, who challenged the Income Tax Officer's decision to convert his case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that this conversion did not follow the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which require credible materials or information to justify such a change. The court, however, dismissed the writ petition, stating that the issues raised were factual and could be addressed through an appeal, not a writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755227 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: A KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Central Board of Direct Taxes; Complete scrutiny; Limited scrutiny; Under-assessment of income; Writ petition
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10530 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) VINODKUMAR A.C., ADIYATTU HOUSE, CMC-5, CHERTHALA-688524. BY ADV.SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULANGARA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, A. N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI-110001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10530 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE A. Y. 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT. P3. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.17. EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT. 30.12.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.12.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.01.2018 TO EXT. P6. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.16. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.09.16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10530 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-16 has been revised and the assessment of the petitioner for the said year has been completed under Section 144 of the Act, in terms of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is though appealable, the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. W.P.(c).No.10530 of 2018 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner which was taken only for limited scrutiny initially was converted to a case of complete scrutiny later, without following the guidelines issued in this regard by the Central Board of Direct T axes, in terms of Ext.P8 instructions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case of limited scrutiny of the returns can be converted as a case of complete scrutiny only in cases where materials are available to form a reasonable view that the same is a case of under assessment of income. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in terms of Ext.P8 instructions, there has to be credible materials on record or information for forming such a view. According to the petitioner, there are absolutely no material on record to infer that the case of the petitioner is a case of under assessment and therefore, the conversion of the case of the petitioner as a complete scrutiny case is contrary to the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct T axes. 4. I am afraid, a writ petition cannot be W.P.(c).No.10530 of 2018 : 3 : entertained on the aforesaid ground, especially when the question raised is a pure question of fact and the petitioner has a right royal remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order under the Act. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in appeal. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "