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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 22 DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945WP(C) NO. 7698 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SREENI PARAMESWARAN,AGED 44 YEARS7/42 - B5, MYSTIC BELLS VILLA NO -1, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682308 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), RANGE 2, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018WARD 2(1), RANGE 2, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 2NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTREDELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS, PIN – 110001DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS, PIN – 110001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Dated this the 22[nd] day of June,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to quash Ext P2 orderpassed by the second respondent. 2.The petitioner’s case is that he is the Directorof a company, which is an assessee under the IncomeTax Act, 1961. The first respondent had completed theassessment for the assessment year 2008-09 by Ext P1order. Against the above order, the petitioner had filedan appeal before the second respondent, which wasrejected by Ext P2. Ext P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Thesecond respondent had passed Ext P2 order on theground that the petitioner had not filed any reply onthe various hearing dates. In fact, the petitioner wasnot served with any intimation regarding the posting ofthe appeal. This is a clear violation of principles ofnatural justice. Although the petitioner has a remedy to file a further appeal, as there is violation of theprinciples of natural justice, the petitioner hasapproached this Court and filed the present writpetition. Ext P2 and all further proceedings pursuant toit may be quashed. Hence, the writ petition. 3.The respondents have filed a counter affidavitdenying the assertions in the writ petition. Therespondents have specifically denied the allegation inthe writ petition, that the petitioner was not servedwith any notice is false and baseless. The respondentshave produced Exts R1(a) to R1(e) communications tosubstantiate that the notices were served on thepetitioner through his registered e-mail id. Similarly,the appeal order was also served on the petitioner asevidenced by Ext R1(f). There is no violation of theprinciples of natural justice as alleged. Therefore, thewrit petition may be dismissed. 4.Heard; Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents. 5.Having considered the pleadings andmaterials on record and after appreciating Exts R1(a)to R1(e) communications, I have no hesitation in mymind that the petitioner was served with notice beforeExt P2 order was passed. Having considered the pleadings and 6. In the above conspectus, I find no justifiablereason or ground to entertain the writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, withoutprejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out hisremedies, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/22.06.23 //True copy//P.A.To Judge