Allowed

Save a Family Plan (India) v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Kerala HC7 Jun 2022WP(C)/1734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that denial of hearing to petitioner in income tax appeal proceedings violated natural justice. Quashed appellate orders under National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020, and restored appeals.

What did the court decide?

None of Exts.P16, P17 in WP(C) No.1734/2022 and Ext.P2 in WP(C) No.1976/2022 shall be valid. Appeals restored to file.

Save a Family Plan (India) Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1734 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA)
AISWARYAGRAM, PARAPPURAM, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683593,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FR. MARSHEL MELAPPELLY.

¶7

BY ADVS.
JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
ISAAC THOMAS
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018.

¶10

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AREECKAL MANSION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682018.

¶11

3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶12

4 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶13

5 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADV S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶15

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶16

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).1976/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶25

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1976 OF 2022

¶26

PETITIONER:

¶27

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA)
AISWARYAGRAM, PARAPPURAM, KANJOOR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FR.MARSHEL MELAPPELLY.

¶28

BY ADVS.
JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
ISAAC THOMAS
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.

¶31

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AREECKAL MANSION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036.

¶32

3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶33

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶34

¶35

4 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶36

5 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶37

6 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-1 & C-11, KOCHI BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK-C-1 & C-11, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KERALA-682037.

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).1734/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶40

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

[WP(C) Nos.1734/2022, 1976/2022]

¶43

The petitioner is common in these cases. The issue arising for consideration is also common and can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

¶44

The petitioner faced assessment proceedings in respect of assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. The petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority challenging the orders of assessment. It appears that the appeals have been disposed of without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as hearing was not mandatory under the scheme National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020.

¶45

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in these cases would submit that under the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020, the hearing was granted to the assessee only at the discretion of Principal Chief Commissioner. It is submitted that this provision of the National Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2020 came to be challenged before various Courts and while the matters were being considered by the

¶46

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶47

¶48

Supreme Court, the scheme itself was amended, making it mandatory for assessees to be heard, while appeals are decided, if such an option is sought.

¶49

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would content that the orders at Exts.P16 & P17 in W.P(C) No.1734/2022 and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.1976/2022, pertaining to the assessment years in question cannot be faulted, because they are issued in accordance with the provisions of the scheme as it existed at that point of time. However, he fairly submits that as per the amended scheme, hearing is mandatory.

¶50

Taking note of the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in these cases and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I am of the opinion that the denial of opportunity to the petitioner for a hearing at the stage of appeal is a violation of principles of natural justice and even if the provisions of the scheme did not provide for such an opportunity, the rules of natural justice have to be read into the scheme and the petitioner was definitely entitled to an opportunity to present its case before the appeals were decided. It must also be noticed that the scheme itself has been later amended making it mandatory to

¶51

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶52

¶53

grant an opportunity of hearing if the same is sought. Therefore, I am of the view that Exts.P16 & P17 in W.P(C) No.1734/2022 and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.1976/2022 which are orders in appeal for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 are liable to be set aside. Therefore Exts.P16 & P17 in W.P(C) No.1734/2022 and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.1976/2022 are quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid assessment years will stand restored to file and they shall be disposed of in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶54

These writ petitions will stand allowed in the manner indicated above.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶57

ats

¶58

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1734/2022

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED` `30.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14` `PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED` `20.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15` `PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 18.04.2016 FOR` `ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 20.01.2020 FOR` `ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `09.03.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN` `WP.NO.7039 OF 2020.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED` `25.09.2020 INTRODUCING FACELESS APPEAL` `SCHEME, 2020 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2020` `IN WP(C) NO. 8044/2020 OF THE DELHI HIGH` `COURT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021` `PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN` `TRANSFER PETITION NOS. 1445/1446 OF` `2021.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2021` `PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN` `TRANSFER PETITION NOS. 1445/1446 OF` `2021.`

¶63

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶64

¶65

`Exhibit`	`P10` `TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022` `PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN` `TRANSFER PETITION NOS. 1445/1446 OF` `2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P11` `TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED` `28.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF` `INDIA INTRODUCING FACELESS APPEAL` `SCHEME, 2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P12` `TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR` `ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.`
`Exhibit`	`P13` `TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR` `ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15.`
`Exhibit`	`P14` `TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE` `ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 29.11.2021 ALONG` `WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR ASSESSMENT` `YEAR 2013-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P15` `TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE` `ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 29.11.2021 ALONG` `WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR ASSESSMENT` `YEAR 2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P16` `TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED` `03.12.2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.`
`Exhibit`	`P17` `TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED` `17.12.2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15.`
`Exhibit`	`P18` `TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED` `30.12.2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14.`
`Exhibit`	`P19` `TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED` `31.12.2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15.`

¶66

W.P(C).Nos.1734 & 1976 of 2022

¶67

¶68

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶70

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED` `31.12.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 PASSED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.09.2020` `ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE,` `(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE),` `(CENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES),NEW DELHI.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL DATED 04.01.2022` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 07.01.2022` `TOGETHER WITH THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.12.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMITTED DATED NIL` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL FILED BEFORE` `THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI` `FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16.`

Save a Family Plan (India) v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Save a Family Plan (India) v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abb India Limited Vs State of Kerala

Satheesan M Vs the State of Kerala

Suma Mohan Vs the Authorised Officer, Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 55

Akankshamanagal Vs the Authorized Officer

Save a Family Plan (India) Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Ismail.a.a., Vs the Authorized Officer, Irinjalakkuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.