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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATHMONDAY, THE 18 DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 382 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/1/2024 IN WP(C) NO.30992 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. WADAKKANCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AGED 55 YEARSNO. 3279, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MADANAN.K.P., ddddPIN - 680582 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONK.KRISHNAMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI, PIN - 100001 SC-JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The appellant is a Co-operative Society providing credit facilities to its members and is an assessee to income tax. 2.The appellant filed income tax return with respect tothe assessment year 2020-21 relevant to the financial year 2019-2020. The appellant’s case was selected for scrutiny throughCASS under the complete scrutiny category, and Ext.P1 showcause notice was issued directing him to file objection before9/9/2022. The appellant did not file reply on or before 9/9/2022due to the fact that its office was closed on account of Onamholidays. According to the appellant, its office resumedfunctioning only on 12/9/2022, and by that time, the onlinefunctionality to file reply in the income tax portal had alreadyclosed. Therefore, the appellant filed Ext.P2, a reply to the 1[st]respondent/jurisdictional assessing authority, on 14/9/2022,pointing out the objections as well as requesting an opportunity WA No.382/2024 for a personal hearing through video conferencing. However, the2[nd] respondent completed the assessment and passed Ext.P3assessment order, creating a demand for `60,68,335/-. Theappellant challenged Ext.P3 order unsuccessfully before thelearned Single Judge. It is challenging the judgment of thelearned Single Judge; the appellant is before us. 3.We have heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learnedcounsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department. We have heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned 4.Though the appellant was directed to file reply toExt.P1 on or before 9/9/2022, it is not in dispute that it gaveExt.P2 reply to the 1[st] respondent on 14/9/2022. In Ext. P2 reply,the appellant has not only pointed out its objections to the factsstated in Ext.P1 but also requested an opportunity for a personalhearing through video conferencing. In Ext.P2, the appellant hasgiven a detailed bifurcation of the miscellaneous income of`1,30,67,114/- and claimed for deduction under Section 80P ofthe Income Tax Act. It is true that the appellant could not filereply to Ext.P1 through online mode. But the fact remains that hegave reply directly to the 1[st] respondent on 14/9/2022. Ext.P3 WA No.382/2024 -:4:- We have heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned 4.Though the appellant was directed to file reply toExt.P1 on or before 9/9/2022, it is not in dispute that it gaveExt.P2 reply to the 1[st] respondent on 14/9/2022. In Ext. P2 reply,the appellant has not only pointed out its objections to the factsstated in Ext.P1 but also requested an opportunity for a personalhearing through video conferencing. In Ext.P2, the appellant hasgiven a detailed bifurcation of the miscellaneous income of`1,30,67,114/- and claimed for deduction under Section 80P ofthe Income Tax Act. It is true that the appellant could not filereply to Ext.P1 through online mode. But the fact remains that hegave reply directly to the 1[st] respondent on 14/9/2022. Ext.P3 WA No.382/2024 -:4:- order was passed on 23/9/2022. Even though the 1[st] respondentreceived Ext.P2 reply well in advance, he did not consider thesame at all while passing Ext.P3 order. That apart, no opportunityfor personal hearing as requested in Ext.P2 was given. In thesecircumstances, we are of the view that there is a clear violation ofthe principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned judgment,as well as Ext.P3, are not sustainable, and we set aside the same.The 1[st] respondent is directed to redo the assessment taking intoaccount the bifurcation of interest component shown in Ext.P2reply and also giving an opportunity for personal hearing to theappellant. The 1[st] respondent shall, thereafter, pass a freshassessment order within two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH