By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944WP(C) NO. 17272 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SHINI SATHEESHKUMAR,AGED 48 YEARS9/485 MP KALAM, MANNAMPALLAM, NENMENI POST, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD-678506. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014. 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON01.06.2022, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.17268/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944WP(C) NO. 17268 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRIPAD,AGED 61 YEARSKOZHISSERI MANA, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD-679121. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,PALAKKAD-678014. WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENDLIGH CHURCH ROAD, 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 01.06.2022, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.17272/2022, THE COURT ONTHE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Petitioners in these cases are assessees under the IncomeTax Act. Since identical issues arise for consideration in thesecases and they can be conveniently disposed of by thecommon judgment. 2.In both these cases the petitioners were issued withnotices under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act, requiringthe petitioners to show cause as to why reassessmentproceedings should not be initiated against them. Thesenotices are dated 25-03-2022. In W.P(C) No.17272/2022, theassessee was required to show cause by 01-04-2022 while inW.P.(C) No.17268/2022 the assessee was required to showcause by 31-03-2022. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners in thesecases would submit that the provisions of Section 148 requirethat a minimum 7 days time has to be granted to the assesseesto reply to the show cause notices. It is submitted in W.P(C)No.17272/2022, the assessee received the notice only on01-04-2022, while in W.P(C) No.17268/2022, the assessee received the notice on 30-03-2022. The only contentionstherefore is that sufficient time was not granted to reply to theshow cause notice. 4.The learned standing counsel appearing for theIncome Tax Department department vehemently opposes thegrant of any relief. It is submitted that even assuming that thephysical copies of the notices were received by the respectiveassessees only on the dates specified above, it cannot be saidthat sufficient notice as required by the provisions Section148A were not given as the notices were uploaded in thesystem and were sent to the registered Email Ids of therespective assessees on 25-03-2022 itself. He has also placedcertain documents before me to show that the notices hadbeen uploaded on 25-03-2022 itself. In short his contentions isthat for the purposes of determining whether sufficient timewas given to the assessees to reply should be determined withreference to the date 25-03-2022 and not the date on whichthe assessees claimed to have received the notices by post. 5.This is not a case were the proceedings are baredby limitation even if the date of receipt of notice is determined W.P.(C) Nos.17272 &17268 of 2022 5.This is not a case were the proceedings are baredby limitation even if the date of receipt of notice is determined W.P.(C) Nos.17272 &17268 of 2022 to be any other date other than 25-03-2022. The petitionershave a statutory right to reply to the notices within 7 days ofits receipt. Though there is substantial merit in the contentiontaken by the learned counsel for the department that thenotices having been sent to the registered Email Ids of theassessees on 25-03-2022 that, must be taken as a relevantdate, I am of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused tothe department by affording an opportunity to the petitionersto reply to the show cause notice within a period of 7 days. Inthe result Ext.P3 order in both cases will stand set aside andthe officer concerned shall take a fresh decision in the matterafter giving 7 days time to the petitioners to reply to the showcause notice. The petitioners shall submit their replies on orbefore07-06-2022 and a fresh decision shall be takenthereafter in accordance with law. These Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly. ats Sd/- GOPINATH P.JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17272/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19DATED 25/03/2022. Exhibit P2COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT LIST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTFOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 06/04/2022. Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/04/2022. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17268/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19DATED 25/03/2022. Exhibit P2COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT LIST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTFOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 07/04/2022. Exhibit P4COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/04/2022.