Dismissed

Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar v. Assessment Unit

Kerala HC18 Mar 2024WP(C)/10822/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-bench High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding lack of proper notice, opportunity of hearing, and jurisdiction under faceless provisions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar Vs Assessment Unit — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10822 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

KOLLASRU KANDY DHANESH KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS KOLLARUKANDY SAROJINI NIVAS, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019

¶7

BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN; RISHAL.K SUDEVAN MAMIYIL MUKKATH

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 ASSESSMENT UNIT HEADED BY PRINCIPLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶10

2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT, PIN - 673001

¶11

BY ADV KEERTHIVAS GIRI

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.10822/2024

¶16

-2-

¶17

The petitioner, an assessee under the provisions of the

¶18

Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), has filed the present writ petition impugning the Ext.P7 Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the IT Act. The assessment involved in the present case is 2016-17.

¶19

The petitioner did not file the return of his income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 139(1) of the IT

¶20

Act. As per the information available with the Department, the petitioner, during the Financial Year 2015-16, relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17, has entered into financial transactions of huge proportions, which are already extracted in the Assessment Order in question. As the petitioner, despite entering into huge financial transactions of crores, did not file the return of income, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped

¶21

W.P.(C) No.10822/2024

¶22

-3-

¶23

assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. As a consequence, an order under Section 148A(d) came to be passed, and a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2023.

¶24

2.1 In response to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the petitioner filed return of his income on 24.04.2023 and declared a total income of Rs.1,67,33,860/-. Subsequent thereto, several notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1) were issued, the details of which have been given in the Assessment Order itself. The petitioner did not respond to the several notices which are issued to him, and therefore the assessment came to be completed in Ext.P7.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶26

the petitioner was not given ‘ proper ’ notice under Section 143 of the IT Act; no opportunity of hearing was given to him under Section 149A(d); and the Assessing Officer does not have

¶27

W.P.(C) No.10822/2024

¶28

-4-

¶29

jurisdiction in view of the faceless provisions incorporated in the IT Act with effect from 2022.

¶30

Admittedly, the petitioner was issued notice and the notice is available in the web portal. This Court cannot believe the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no real-time alert was sent by e-mail and to the mobile number given by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department, inasmuch as there is no human intervention and these are automatic systems. Once a notice is issued, a real-time alert is sent to the mobile number given to the Department as well as the e-mail address. Therefore, this Court finds no substance in the first contention.

¶31

4.1 Once the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, there is no question of issuing further notice for an opportunity of hearing as the petitioner had not controverted the allegations in the notice

¶32

W.P.(C) No.10822/2024

¶33

-5-

¶34

issued under Section 148A of the Act.

¶35

4.2 So far as the question of faceless assessment is concerned, the assessment has been completed faceless. Prior to assessment, there is no requirement for faceless proceedings as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

¶36

Therefore, I find no substance in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE

jjj

W.P.(C) No.10822/2024

¶42

-6-

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10822/2024

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P-1	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148A[B] FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 09.02.2023
Exhibit P-2	TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S 148A[D] FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 31.03.2023
Exhibit P-3	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 31.03.2023
Exhibit P-4	RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2016.17 FILED ON 24.04.2023
Exhibit P-5	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 03.01.2024
Exhibit P-6	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DTD 24.01.2024 TO EXT-P5 NOTICE
Exhibit P-7	TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016.17 DTD 29.02.2024
Exhibit P-8	TRUE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE U/S 275 R/W SEC 271F AY 2016.17 DTD 29.02.2024

Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar v. Assessment Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollasru Kandy Dhanesh Kumar v. Assessment Unit

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

Suhail Onathu Kattil, Vs Disputes Resolution Panel -2

Mohammed Haneefa Onathu Kattil, Vs Disputes Resolution Panel -2

Sasi Pathirakunnath, Vs Enforcement Officer

Sleeba Koshy, Vs the Mavelikkara Municipality, Rep by the Secretary

Lulu Bahauddin, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

State of Kerala Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary(Taxes) Vs Kallada Hotels