By Advs.harisankar v. Menonk.krishnameera V.menonr.sreejith

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022 PETITIONER: UBAID P.T.AGED 44 YEARSKOLATHARA (POST), KOZHIKODE - 673 655. PROPRIETOR, U.K.INDUSTRIES, 11/449A, KUNDAYITHODU, BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONK.KRISHNAMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 100 001. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAVI, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No.11525 of 2022 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 01[st]day of March, 2023 JUDGMENT The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 orderissued by the 2[nd] respondent. Ext.P3 is an assessment orderwhich was assailed on the ground that the petitioner did notget sufficient time to put forward his case. It is contendedthat the draft assessment order granted only 24 hours' timeto the petitioner for flng objections. The petitioner hadpreferred Ext.P2 seeking adjournment as well as for personalhearing. It was not considered by the 2[nd] respondent whileissuing the assessment order. The main ground on which theorder is challenged is, violation of the principles of naturaljustice. Even though there is an objection taken in the writpetition that the assessment proceedings are barred bylimitation, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner will be satisfied if sufficient time is granted to him for responding to the draft assessment order. The StandingCounsel for the department fairly submitted that time can begranted since it is apparent from the order that only 24hours' time was granted. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is setaside. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to pass fresh draftassessment orders in accordance with law, after givingsufficient time to the petitioner to respond. Sd/- sn T.R.RAVIJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11525/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, NFAC, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE