By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 27 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20684 OF 2022 PETITIONER: P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN,AGED 60 YEARS,HAREKRISHNA, PULIYAPARAMBU, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PALAKKAD-678004. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4assessment order issued under Section 144 B of the Income TaxAct. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner wasserved with Ext.P3 draft assessment order on 31.03.2022, callingupon the petitioner to submit reply on the same date before3:30P.M. on the same day. It is submitted that the finalization ofdraft assessment order by Ext.P4 without giving sufficientopportunity to the petitioner to reply to the draft assessmentorder is illegal and unsustainable. 2.I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the respondent department. The learned Standing Counselsubmits that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedyagainst Ext.P4 and it is open to the petitioner to take allcontentions before the appellate authority including thecontention that sufficient opportunity was not given to thepetitioner to reply to the proposals contained in the draftassessment order. It is submitted that there is no reasonwhatsoever for the petitioner to approach this Court directlyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order. However it is very fairly admitted that Ext. P3 draftassessment order was served on 31.03.2022, calling upon thepetitioner to submit reply by 3:30 p.m., on the same day. 3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase and considering the contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel forthe department, I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 order is liable tobe set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be givenreasonable time to reply to the proposals contained in Ext.P3draft assessment order. The petitioner shall file a reply to theproposals contained in Ext.P3 draft assessment order within 7days from the date on which a suitable link is provided to thepetitioner by the department. Thereafter, the proceeding shall becompleted in accordance with law after affording an opportunityof hearing to the petitioner. Sd/-GOPINATH P. JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20684/2022