Allowed

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited v. Union of India

Kerala HC6 Oct 2021WP(C)/13134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court found that the Income Tax Department violated principles of natural justice by issuing a final assessment order before granting the petitioner requested time to file objections. The petition was allowed quashing the order and directing fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the final assessment order (Ext.P6) and directed the respondent to issue fresh orders after granting the petitioner time to file objections until November 10, 2021.

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 13134 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ASIANET DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED 2A, 2ND FLOOR, CARNIVAL TECHNOPARK, KARIYAVATTOM TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FINANCE & COMPLIANCES), MR.SURESH.P.S.

¶7

BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR KURYAN THOMAS K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 004. 2 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 003. BY ADV SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC

¶10

SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C)No. 13134 of 2021

¶13

¶14

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------W.P.(C)No. 13134 of 2021

¶15

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 final order of assessment issued by the second respondent. The reason for invoking remedy under Article 226 is the claim of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶18

According to the petitioner, a draft assessment order was issued on 02.04.2021 directing the petitioner to file its objection on or before 06.04.2021. Since very minimal period was granted to the petitioner to file objection, petitioner sought for a breathing time till 13.04.2021 to file its objection as is evident from Ext.P5. However, disregarding the request for the aforesaid reasonable time for filing the objection, the assessing officer proceeded to pass Ext.P6 final orders of assessment on 07.04.2021.

¶19

W.P.(C)No. 13134 of 2021

¶20

¶21

I have heard Adv. Kuryan Thomas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Income Tax department.

¶22

On a perusal of the pleadings of the case and on considering the nature of the assessment order that has been passed, I am satisfied that this is a clear instance where the principles of natural justice have been violated.

¶23

The request for time till 13.04.2021 in the circumstance of the case was a reasonable request. There was no occasion for the respondent to deny such a request made by the petitioner. It is essential that an assessment order being the foundation on which the rights and obligations of assessees accrue, reasonable period of time be granted for the assessees to raise objections in accordance with law as it deems fit. Failure to grant sufficient time to file an objection, in the absence of any other compelling circumstances, is certainly an instance of intrusion of the principles of natural justice.

¶24

W.P.(C)No. 13134 of 2021

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 order of assessment and direct fresh orders to be issued. To avoid delay in the matter, petitioner is directed to file its objections to Ext.P4 draft assessment order on or before 10.11.2021 so that the respondent concerned can consider and pass appropriate orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, without further delay. To enable the petitioner to file reply as directed in the judgment, the respondent shall keep the electronic portal of the department open for such filing till 10.11.2021.

¶27

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶28

Sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶29

AJ/06.10.2021

¶30

W.P.(C)No. 13134 of 2021

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13134/2021

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION 370149/154/2019-TPL (SO 3264(E) DATED 12.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.60/2020/F.NO.370149/154/TPL (SO 2745(E) DATED 13.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.61/2020/F.NO.370149/154/2019-TPL (SO 2746(E) DATED 13.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2018-19.
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WEB SCREEN SHOT OF THE INCOME TAX E-PORTAL, REFLECTING THE TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4 DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER.
Exhibit P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTIONS 143(3A) & 143(3B) OF THE ACT, FOR THE AY 2018-19.
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, IN WP NO.10693/2021 AND WMP NOS.11326 AND 11327/2021.

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zubair v Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Associates Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Cochin Refineries Employees Association Vs Union of India

Prasanna Kumar R Vs the District Labour Officer

Nishad M.B Vs the District Labour Officer

Manikantan Nair B., Vs the Chief Manager