Disposed

Lavia Infra Ltd. v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Kerala HC17 Jan 2024WP(C)/2006/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A company that failed to file returns or respond to income tax notices faced best-judgement assessment under Section 144 with Rs. 4,33,57,333 treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Citing the Managing Director's illness, the petitioner sought time; the court granted six weeks to file documents before assessment finalisation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file return and submit documents within six weeks; failing which assessment to be finalised under Section 144.

Lavia Infra Ltd. Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

LAVIA INFRA LTD

¶8

N K TOWER, KALLUVATHUKKAL KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR SATHEESAN V, PIN - 691578

¶9

BY ADVS.
K.P.PRADEEP
T.T.BIJU
T.THASMI
M.J.ANOOPA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- , REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110001

¶12

2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-, PIN - 682018

¶13

3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS KOLLAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001

¶14

4 NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI- REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NAFAC), PIN - 110003

¶15

5 INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NAFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

AJITH KUMAR-SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner company got incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner company is engaged in trading of construction materials and hardware goods. It appears that the petitioner company had a run with bad financial management, and therefore, the Bank of India has proceeded against the company under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. An application had been filed by the Bank of Baroda for recovery of 20.13 crores.

¶23

The petitioner did not file the return of his income for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner was issued with notice under Section 148 of the SARFAESI Act, however, no reply was filed, and thereafter, an order under Section 148(b) came to be passed, as evident in Ext.P8.

¶24

The petitioner, thereafter, was issued with a notice under Section 148 for filing the return, and the petitioner did not file the return nor complied with the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

¶25

4.A show cause notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act has been issued on 26.12.2023 to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to show, why the assessment should not be completed

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2024

¶27

¶28

under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act and an amount of Rs. 4,33,57,333/- should not be treated as an unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner has filed a reply to the said notice on 05.01.2024. Thereafter, notice dated 09.01.2024 has been issued for adding the variation as pointed out ie, Rs.4,33,57,333/-. The petitioner has not filed any reply to the said show cause notice, and the petitioner has sought time till 20.01.2024.

¶29

5.I have heard Dr. K.P Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Adv. Ajith Kumar, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶30

6.Dr. K.P Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Managing Director of the company is suffering with certain kind of mental illness and for that reason the relevant documents could not be submitted by the petitioner’s company before the Income Tax Department. The petitioner company maybe granted a further time of six weeks for producing the relevant documents, as a last chance. Considering the illness of the Managing Director.

¶31

Adv. Ajith Kumar, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits, that for the past one year the petitioner has been seeking time and has not complied with the notices issued to him. The petitioner has not filed its return. There is an unexplained income of the petitioner of Rs.4,33,57,333/-. He however submits

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2024

¶34

that he would leave it to the discretion of this court to grant reasonable time to the petitioner, as a last chance to submit the requisite documents in support of its case.

¶35

Considering the aforesaid submission, the present writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file return and submit all the requisite documents in response to the notice dated 09.01.2024, within a period of six weeks from today (16.02.2024), failing which, the revenue will proceed to finalize the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 2006 OF 2024

¶41

¶42

¶43

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY` `INCORPORAT` `THE PETITI`	`OF` `ION` `ONE`	`THE` `DAT` `R`	`CERTIFICATE OF` `ED 5-4-2018 ISSUED TO`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `19/680 DAT` `STATE BANK`	`OF` `ED` `OF`	`THE` `01-0` `IND`	`NOTICE SAMB /EKM/2018-` `3-2019 ISSUED BY THE` `IA`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `PETITIONER` `MINISTRY O`	`OF` `CO` `F C`	`THE` `MPAN` `ORPO`	`CURRENT DETAILS OF THE` `Y IN THE RECORDS OF` `RATE AFFAIRS`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED UND`	`OF` `ER`	`THE` `SECT`	`NOTICE DATED 27-1-2023` `ION 133 (6)`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED`	`OF` `BY`	`THE` `THE`	`REPLY DATED 4-2-2023` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P5(a)`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF`	`THE`	`REPLY DATED 13-03-2023`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `PET`	`NOTICE DATED 5-3-2023` `ITIONER COMPANY`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED`	`OF` `BY`	`THE` `THE`	`REPLY DATED 13-03-2023` `PETITIONER COMPANY`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `3RD`	`ORDER DATED 16-3-2023` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `3RD`	`NOTICE DATED 16-3-2023` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED UND` `INCOME TAX`	`OF` `ER` `AC`	`THE` `SECT` `T, 1`	`NOTICE DATED 26-09-2023` `ION 142 (1) OF THE` `961`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `PET`	`NOTICE DATED 20-10-2023` `ITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `PET`	`NOTICE DATED 22-11-2023` `ITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P13 P13`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED`	`OF` `BY`	`THE` `THE`	`REPLY DATED 30-11-2023` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `PET`	`NOTICE DATED 26-12-2023` `ITIONER COMPANY`
`Exhibit`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY` `P14 ON 5-1`	`OF` `-20`	`THE` `24`	`REPLY SUBMITTED IN EXT`
`Exhibit`	`P16`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED TO`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `PET`	`NOTICE DATED 9-1-2024` `ITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P17`	`TRUE COPY` `13-1-2024` `HOSPITAL,`	`OF` `ISS` `MAV`	`THE` `UED` `ELIK`	`MEDICAL CERTFICATE DATED` `BY THE SREEKANTAPURAM` `ARA`

Lavia Infra Ltd. v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavia Infra Ltd. v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

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

Rasheed Hameed Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

M/S. Ajay Overseas Shipping Vs Commissioner of Customs

M/S. Meritra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Oleena Mahila Samajam, Vs State Tax Officer

Sdf Industries Limited Vs the Commissioner

Hotel Akshaya, Vs Income Tax Officer