Dismissed

M/S. Coimbatore Traders,, v. the Income Tax Officer

Kerala HC19 Sept 2023WP(C)/15136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an income tax assessment order was dismissed as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal. The court granted liberty to approach the appellate authority with a condonation of delay application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appellate authority with condonation of delay.

M/S. Coimbatore Traders,, Vs the Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 15136 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

M/S. COIMBATORE TRADERS,,

¶6

34/360, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680 021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
V.MUHAMMED RIYAS.

¶7

BY ADVS.

¶8

HARISANKAR V. MENON(K/700/1997)
MEERA V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR,
THRISSUR-680 001.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA

¶14

ADV.JOSE JOSEPH-SC-IT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC No.15136 of 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2023

¶20

1 . Heard Ms.Krishna K, learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner as well as Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶22

2 . The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 assessment order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the 2 nd respondent for the assessment year 2017-18.

¶23

3 . The petitioner is a partnership firm

¶24

engaged in the trading of vehicle body building products like aluminium composite panel, automobiles spare parts and accessories, cables, glasses, plywoods etc. The petitioner did not filed income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, to which petitioner filed reply and thereafter notice under Section 142 was

¶25

WPC No.15136 of 2022

¶26

¶27

issued. The petitioner also filed reply to the 142 notice. After considering the reply, the assessment proceedings were finalised by the impugned order and the petitioner has been assessed to the tax of Rs.1,45,000/-. The assessing authority has noted that the petitioner did not file the return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act despite huge cash deposit in the financial year 2016-17 of Rs.2,31,23,940/-.

¶28

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s reply has not been taken note of. Such contention is not worn out from the record inasmuch as the admissible deductions had been allowed while finalising the assessment proceedings. Once the petitioner was given opportunity and filed reply to the show cause notices, it cannot be said that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court should not be approached under Article 226 of the

¶29

WPC No.15136 of 2022

¶30

¶31

Constitution of India against the assessment order passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. There is a statutory alternate remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act. To avoid the remedy of appeal, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

5 . This Court does not find any ground to entertain such a writ petition, and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority against the assessment order with the application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority may condone the delay inasmuch as the petitioner had approached this Court with this writ petition on 22.04.2022 and it has remained pending on the file of this Court till today. If the delay is condoned, the appellate authority should proceed with the appeal on merits and decide the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶33

WPC No.15136 of 2022

¶34

¶35

With the aforesaid liberty, the present

¶36

writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WPC No.15136 of 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15136/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2COPY OF RETURN OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
YEAR 2017-18.
Exhibit P3COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4COPY OF E RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Exhibit P5COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7COPY OF E RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Exhibit P8COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9COPY OF ADJOURNMENT DETAILS FROM THE PORTAL
OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P10COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Exhibit P11COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET
FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.
Exhibit P12COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

M/S. Coimbatore Traders,, v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Coimbatore Traders,, v. the Income Tax Officer

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

Akbar P. T., Vs the District Collector

Ramankutty P.C., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Ali. M Vs the Secretary

Firoz K.M., Vs Union of India

Valsala Vs the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Ramesh M.B., Vs the Transport Commissioner