By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI THURSDAY, THE 16 DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2022 PETITIONER: RENJUAGED 33 YEARSKUDUKKALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 305 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 100 001 SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAVI, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No.11735 of 2022 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th]day of March, 2023 JUDGMENT Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for therespondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 order ofassessment on the ground that the assessment has beencompleted ex-parte. Ext.P1 is the show cause notice issuedunder Section 144 directing the petitioner to submit hisresponse by 23:59 hours of 16.03.2022. Ext.P1 is dated12.03.2022. The petitioner submitted a request seekingadjournment till 22.03.2022. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgmentregarding the receipt for adjournment which specificallyshows that the request is made on 16.03.2022 andadjournment is sought up to 22.03.2022. However, theassessment order which was issued on 22.03.2022 does not refer to such a request for adjournment. In fact, in paragraphNo.7 of the order, it specifically says that finally a show causenotice was issued on 12.03.2022 fixing the hearing on or before 16.03.2022 but again no response has beenreceived so far. The petitioner contends that his request hasnot even been considered and as a matter of fact by22.03.2022, he had already submitted his response. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit whereinthe previous instances when the petitioner had been giventime to submit his response has been narrated. However,there is no explanation for the non-consideration of therequest for adjournment made on 16.03.2022 in the orderdated 22.03.2022. It is apparent that the Assessing Officerwas not aware of the request while passing the order.Particularly since the objections has been submitted on thesame day on which the order was passed, interest of justicerequires that the respondent passes fresh orders afterconsidering the response filed by the petitioner which havebeen produced as Exts.P5 to P8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 isquashed. There will be a direction to the respondent to passfresh orders of assessment after considering Exts.P5 to P8, inaccordance with law. Sd/- T.R.RAVIJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11735/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2COPY OF WEB PAGE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTEVIDENCING THE FILING OF SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONEVIDENCING THE FILING OF SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION Exhibit P3COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P5COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6COPY OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE PETITIONERPETITIONER Exhibit P7COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8COPY OF E-PROCEEDINGS RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE