Anilkumar.k.kaged 50 Yearskailas, Thikkodi, Payyoli.p.o,Kozhikode v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 13 DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: ANILKUMAR.K.KAGED 50 YEARSKAILAS, THIKKODI, PAYYOLI.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673529.BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P8order of assessment, principally on the ground that the same isissued in violation of the principles of natural justice as therequest submitted by the petitioner vide Ext.P7 on 28.03.2022for extension of time to file a reply was not considered and theassessment was completed on 29.03.2022. 2.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Department would point out from Paragraph No.7of Ext.P8 that at least five notices were earlier issued to thepetitioner on the various dates shown therein and the petitionerhad responded to those notices. It is submitted that the requestfor granting ten days time submitted on 28.03.2022 could nothave been considered by the officer as the assessment wasgetting time barred on 31.03.2022. It is submitted thatsufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner andthe principles of natural justice have been complied with. It issubmitted that the petitioner has an effective alternativeremedy against Ext.P8 order and that there is no reason tointerfere with Ext.P8 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 3 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat the request for adjournment made vide Ext.P7 was notresponded to and even if the time sought was not beinggranted, the officer ought to have intimated the petitionerabout the same. It is submitted that though the noticesmentioned in Paragraph No.7 were received by the petitioner,the petitioner wanted further time for submitting additionaldocuments to prove his case before the officer and the refusalto grant such time vitiates the entire proceedings. 4.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Department, I am of the view that considering thematters set out in Paragraph No.7 of Ext.P8 order, there is noreason to hold that Ext.P8 order was issued in violation ofprinciples of natural justice. Several notices were issued to thepetitioner which were admittedly, received by the petitioner.Those replies have been considered by the officer while passingExt.P8 order. It is true that the request made by the petitioneron 28.03.2022 for a further period of ten days to submit a replywas not acceded to by the officer. However, there appears to be 4.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Department, I am of the view that considering thematters set out in Paragraph No.7 of Ext.P8 order, there is noreason to hold that Ext.P8 order was issued in violation ofprinciples of natural justice. Several notices were issued to thepetitioner which were admittedly, received by the petitioner.Those replies have been considered by the officer while passingExt.P8 order. It is true that the request made by the petitioneron 28.03.2022 for a further period of ten days to submit a replywas not acceded to by the officer. However, there appears to be a genuine reason for not granting that adjournment. Theassessment was getting time barred on 31.03.2022. Therefore,I cannot find fault with the officer for not accommodating thepetitioner’s request for adjournment by a period of ten daysfrom 28.03.2022. I must also notice that the petitioner madeExt.P7 request only on 28.03.2022, though the notice wasissued on 23.03.2022. Therefore, interference of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is refused, makingit clear that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8before the First Appellate Authority, who shall consider theappeal uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment.To enable the petitioner to approach the First AppellateAuthority with an appeal along with an application for stay, theperiod during which this writ petition was pending before thisCourt namely, from 06.04.2022 till today, shall be excluded forthe purpose of determining any period of limitation withinwhich the appeal had to be filed. This benefit shall be availableonly if the petitioner files an appeal along with the stay petitionwithin one week from today. If the appeal along with the stayapplication is filed within one week from today, proceedingsfor recovery of any amount due under Ext.P8 shall be deferred, WP(C) NO. 12973 OF 2022 5 till a decision is taken by the Appellate Authority on the staypetition, to be filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of above. ajt sd/- GOPINATH P.JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12973/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3Exhibit P4Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COPY OF REPLY FILED BY TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COPY OF ORDER/INTIMATION ISSUED U/S.143(1) OFCENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.