Challenged an income tax assessment order for AY 2017-18 passed without granting the petitioner's requested video-conference hearing. Holding the order violative of natural justice, the Court set it aside and remitted the matter for a fresh assessment after affording a video-conference hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 15298 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
HOTEL AKSHAYA,
GURUVAYUR ROAD, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, VIKAS T.B.
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON
MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001.2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001.BY ADVS.
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
JOSE JOSEPH-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.15298 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2024
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P13 assessment order dated 29.03.2022 in respect of the assessment year 2017-18. The only ground on which the assessment order has been assailed is that the petitioner requested an opportunity of being heard through the facility of video conferencing on 23.03.2022 in Ext.P12. However, without affording an opportunity of being heard, the assessment order has been passed. The evidence of request for providing facility of video conferencing cannot be disputed as Ext.P12 is the screenshot of the request of the petitioner and response on the website of the Income Tax Department. Thus, there has been no opportunity of being heard provided to the petitioner despite request for seeking opportunity, and the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing to the
WPC No.15298 of 2022
petitioner through video conferencing and after hearing the petitioner, pass a fresh assessment order, in accordance with the law.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
AP
WPC No.15298 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15298/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS |
|
|---|---|
Exhibit P1 |
COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED REGISTERED BETWEENTHE PARTNER AND THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THEPETITIONER DATED 5.2.2018. |
Exhibit P2 |
COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUEDBY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DATED5.2.2018. |
Exhibit P3 |
COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 24.3.2021. |
Exhibit P4 |
COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2021. |
Exhibit P5 |
COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 2.12.2021. |
Exhibit P6 |
COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2021. |
Exhibit P7 |
COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 21.12.2021. |
Exhibit P8 |
COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2021. |
Exhibit P9 |
COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.3.2022. |
Exhibit P10 |
COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE EPTITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2022. |
Exhibit P11 |
COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2022. |
Exhibit P12 |
COPY OF WEB PORTAL OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTDATED NIL. |
Exhibit P13 |
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED29.3.2022. |
Exhibit P14 |
COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.2745 (E) ISSUED BYTHE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DELHI DATED13.8.2020. |
1 issue framed by the court
Was the assessment order passed in violation of natural justice by denying the petitioner's request for hearing via video conferencing?
HOTEL AKSHAYA, GURUVAYUR ROAD, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, VIKAS T.B.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001
THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court