Wp(C)/10530/2018 Of Vinodkumar A.c v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10530 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) VINODKUMAR A.C., ADIYATTU HOUSE, CMC-5, CHERTHALA-688524. BY ADV.SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULANGARA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, A. N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DIRECT TAXES, BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE A. Y. 2014-15.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2017.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2017.EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT. P3.EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.17.EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT. 30.12.2017.EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.12.2017.EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.01.2018 TO EXT. P6.EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.16.EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.09.16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL rsr //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10530 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income TaxAct (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The selfassessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-16has been revised and the assessment of the petitioner forthe said year has been completed under Section 144 ofthe Act, in terms of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is thoughappealable, the same is under challenge in this writpetition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel for the firstrespondent. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the case of the petitioner which was taken only forlimited scrutiny initially was converted to a case of completescrutiny later, without following the guidelines issued in thisregard by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in terms ofExt.P8 instructions. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, a case of limited scrutiny of the returns can beconverted as a case of complete scrutiny only in cases wherematerials are available to form a reasonable view that thesame is a case of under assessment of income. It is alsopointed out by the learned counsel that in terms of Ext.P8instructions, there has to be credible materials on record orinformation for forming such a view. According to thepetitioner, there are absolutely no material on record to inferthat the case of the petitioner is a case of under assessmentand therefore, the conversion of the case of the petitioner asa complete scrutiny case is contrary to the directions issuedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 4.I am afraid, a writ petition cannot be entertained on the aforesaid ground, especially when thequestion raised is a pure question of fact and the petitionerhas a right royal remedy by way of appeal against theimpugned order under the Act. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challengethe impugned order in appeal. rsr Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE