Wa/23/2024 Of Shaju Pachelil Pathrose v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945WA NO. 23 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 20400/2023 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SHAJU PACHELIL PATHROSE,AGED 57 YEARSXI/276A PACHELIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P O.,VAZHAPPILLY,MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 BY ADVS.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSAIBEL MATHEW SIBYALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOSISAAC THOMASJOHN VITHAYATHILP.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAMSHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL ASSESSMENTCENTRE,NEW DELHI, PIN - 1100012THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKKAR BHAVAN, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KOCHI, PIN - 682018 WA No.23/2024 -:2:- 3THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 OTHER PRESENT: SC-P.R.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: 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 WP(C) No.20400/2023 dated8/12/2023. 2.The appellant is engaged in the business of arrangingthe purchase of spices for inter-state dealers. The appellant’sincome tax assessment for the year 2016-17 was reopened onthe ground that he made high-value transactions during theperiod 1/1/2015 to 31/12/2015. The assessing officer issued ashow cause notice dated 3/5/2023 to the appellant, giving threedays’ time to respond. The appellant filed an application forextension of time till 20/5/2023 to give the reply. In themeanwhile, the assessing officer issued a second show causenotice dated 17/5/2023 that was identical in all respects to theearlier notice with a direction to respond to the same within twodays. The appellant sought a further time extension till 2/6/2023. WA No.23/2024 However, Ext.P11 assessment order was passed on 24/5/2023,holding that there was no response from the appellant to theshow cause notice, and accordingly, the proposal was confirmed.The appellant challenged Ext.P11 before the learned SingleJudge, who dismissed the same as per the impugned judgment. 3.We have heard Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, thelearned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R.Ajith Kumar, thelearned standing counsel for the respondents. The first show cause notice was issued on 3/5/2023, givingthe appellant three days’ time to respond. The appellant soughttime till 20/5/2023. The records would show that the assessingofficer virtually allowed the said request. Since the second noticedated 17/5/2023 was identical to the earlier notice but with adifferent date thereon and required the appellant to respond tothe notice before 20/5/2023. Again, the appellant asked for timeand did not file a reply. Thus, the appellant admittedly did not fileany reply to the show cause notice even within the extendedperiod of time sought for by him. Therefore, there is nosubstance to the contention of the appellant that there is a WA No.23/2024 -:5:- violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned SingleJudge rightly dismissed the writ petition, giving liberty to theappellant to file a statutory appeal within a period of fifteen daysbefore the appellate authority. We find no merit in the writappeal, and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we extend thefifteen days’ time the learned Single Judge granted to preferappeal and the stay petition till 31/1/2024. The appellateauthority shall consider the stay application within a period of twomonths thereafter. Till orders are passed on the stay applicationor the appeal and the order communicated to the appellant, nocoercive steps shall be taken against the appellant pursuant toExt.P11 assessment order. Sd/- WA No.23/2024 -:5:- violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned SingleJudge rightly dismissed the writ petition, giving liberty to theappellant to file a statutory appeal within a period of fifteen daysbefore the appellate authority. We find no merit in the writappeal, and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we extend thefifteen days’ time the learned Single Judge granted to preferappeal and the stay petition till 31/1/2024. The appellateauthority shall consider the stay application within a period of twomonths thereafter. Till orders are passed on the stay applicationor the appeal and the order communicated to the appellant, nocoercive steps shall be taken against the appellant pursuant toExt.P11 assessment order. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH Rp