Wa/210/2024 Of Mr. Sham Basheer v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 210 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2024 IN WP(C) 38347/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: MR. SHAM BASHEER,AGED 52 YEARS ASHIK MANZIL, NEAR VIMAL HOSPITAL, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, , KERALA, INDIA., PIN – 686631 BY ADV K.LATHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CIT (A), COCHIN, PIN – 682003 2INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C). No.38347 of 2023 is the appellant hereinaggrieved by the judgment dated 01.02.2024 of the learned SingleJudge dismissing the Writ Petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appealare as follows: The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant, who is an assesseeunder the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging Ext.P2series of orders whereby the appeal filed by the appellant againstassessment orders for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The limited ground taken inthe Writ Petition for impugning Ext.P2 series of orders was that theappellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and that nocommunication for hearing was sent to the appellant by the AppellateAuthority before passing the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. 3. Through a statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that the appellant had given as many asfive e-mail ids tothe Department, and the latest e-mail id given by the appellant at thetime of filing the appeal against the assessment order for the year2017-2018 was the one to which the notices of hearing had been sentby the Department. It was contended, therefore, that the appellantcould not be heard to say that there was no communication of thenotices of hearing to it. The learned Single Judge found force in thestand taken by the respondents and held that inasmuch as thecommunication in respect of the hearing of the appeal had been sent tothe e-mail id indicated in the appeal against the assessment order for2017-2018, it had to be seen as sufficient for complying with the rulesof natural justice as far as the appellant herein was concerned. The WritPetition was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of Smt. Latha K,the learned counsel for the appellant, that the e-mail to which thecommunications were addressed by the respondents belonged to anerstwhile employee of the appellant who had since left the service ofthe appellant. It is pointed out that it was under these circumstancesthat different e-mail ids had been indicated in the appeals filed forvarious assessment years and an indication given in the formats ofthose appeals that it would be preferable that the notices in connection 4. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of Smt. Latha K,the learned counsel for the appellant, that the e-mail to which thecommunications were addressed by the respondents belonged to anerstwhile employee of the appellant who had since left the service ofthe appellant. It is pointed out that it was under these circumstancesthat different e-mail ids had been indicated in the appeals filed forvarious assessment years and an indication given in the formats ofthose appeals that it would be preferable that the notices in connection with the hearing were sent by post. The learned Standing counsel forthe respondents, however, would point out that the statutory provisionsenable the Income Tax Department to serve notice to an assesseethrough e-mail, and hence, it may not be proper for an assessee to insiston a service of notice by post. While we are in agreement with thelearned Standing counsel on this latter aspect, we find that if it is thestand of the Department that notices to the assessee will be served onlythrough e-mail, then in our view, there would have been no prejudicecaused to the Department if they served those notices in all the e-mailaddresses furnished by the assessee at the various stages of thelitigation since, by following such a procedure, the Department wouldensure that no assessee would come to Court complaining that noticeswere not sent to them through the e-mail ids indicated by them in thevarious communications with the Department. Inasmuch as in theinstant case, we find that the communications to the appellant were notin the addresses indicated in the appeal memorandum, we set aside theorders impugned in the Writ Petition and direct the Appellate Authorityto issue a fresh notice of hearing in respect of the various appeals(assessment years 2011-2012 to 2014 to 2015) in the e-mail and thereafter, pass final orders in the appeal,after hearing the appellant or his authorised representatives in thematter. The fresh orders, as directed, shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Before parting with this case, we take note of the concernexpressed by the learned Standing counsel for the Income TaxDepartment that a practice has evolved among assessees, of furnishingdifferent e-mail ids at various stages of interactions with thedepartment, which has caused difficulties for the Department whileissuing communications to the assessee. We feel that the Departmentshould evolve a procedure whereby the e-mail id's furnished by theassessee's are regularly updated after confirmation with the assessee,so that at any given point in time, an assessee can only insist upon amaximum of three e-mail ids to which communications intended for himmay be addressed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns