M/S. Coimbatore Traders,,34/360, Kokkalai, Thrissur v. Menonmeera V.menon, R.sreejithk.krishna, Parvathy Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 20 DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 28TH ASWINA, 1945WA NO. 1834 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.9.2023 IN WP(C) 15136/2022 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. COIMBATORE TRADERS,,34/360, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V.MUHAMMED RIYAS., PIN - 680021BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON, R.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA, PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR., PIN - 680001 2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PIN - 110001 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.15136/2022 dated19.9.2023. 2.The appellant is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of selling vehicle body building products. It is anassessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3.The appellant failed to file income tax return withrespect to the assessment year 2017-2018. The 1[st] respondentissued Ext.P1 notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.In response to the said notice, the appellant filed Ext.P2 returnfor the assessment year 2017-2018 on 20.4.2021. Inconsequence, the appellant was issued with a notice underSection 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on 30.6.2021, mainly citing that the appellant has a deposit of ₹2,31,23,940/- in itscurrent bank account. To the said notice, the appellant gaveExt.P4 reply pointing out that the cash deposit cited is out of thecash sales effected by the appellant in the normal course ofbusiness carried on by it. Thereafter, the assessmentproceedings were finalised as per the order that was impugned inthe writ petition and the appellant was assessed to a tax of₹1,45,000/-. The appellant challenged the assessment orderbefore the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that thereply filed by it to the show cause notice was not considered bythe 1[st] respondent. The learned Single Judge after hearing bothsides, dismissed the writ petition. 4.We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learnedcounsel for the appellant. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatthe assessment order issued by the 1[st] respondent is illegal,inasmuch as it was passed violating the principles of naturaljustice. It is submitted that the reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice was not considered at all by the 2[nd] respondent before passing the assessment order that wasimpugned in the writ petition. 6.Admittedly, the reply to the show cause notice was notfiled in time. The assessment order was passed on 25.3.2022.The reply to the show cause notice (Ext.P10) is seen dispatchedonly on 24.3.2022. There is a clear finding in the assessmentorder that in spite of the sufficient opportunity, the appellant didnot respond to the show cause notice. This is not a case whereopportunity was not extended, but, the appellant did not availthe opportunity extended in time. Thus, it cannot be said thatthere is violation of the Principles of natural justice. Even thoughthe assessment order is an ex-parte one, the admissiblededuction has been allowed while finalizing the assessmentproceedings. That apart, without exhausting the alternativeremedy of statutory appeal under Section 246 of the Income TaxAct, the appellant has rushed to this Court. Needless to say,when there is adequate alternative remedy, the jurisdiction under W.A.No.1834/2023 -:5:- Section 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.