Wp(C)/10674/2021 Of Rajakumari Shopping Mall Llp v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943 WP(C).No.10674 OF 2021(H) PETITIONER: RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING MALL LLPAMC 11/1556, CITY PLAZA, NEAR PVT. BUS STAND, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM 695 101,REPRESENTED BY DESIGNATED PARTNER. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.R.SREEJITHSMT.TELMA RAJUSRI.SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOBSMT.CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL RESPONDENTS: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 003.2ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (2), TRIVANDRUM-695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC-SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.10674 of 2021 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of April 2021 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4, an order passed inexercise of the powers under Section 263 of the Income TaxAct (IT Act). Eventhough there are statutory remediesunder the IT Act against Ext.P4, petitioner confines hischallenge against Ext.P4 solely on the ground of violation ofthe principles of natural justice, which according to him, isinbuilt into the provisions of Section 263. 2. On a reading of Section 263, it is evident that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction ought to beaftergiving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 3.Neither the impugned order nor the noticepreceding the order shows that any opportunity as havingbeen granted to the petitioner. 4.I have heard Adv. Anil D. Nair, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned StandingCounsel, Adv.Christopher Abraham. 5.After perusing the impugned orders, I amsatisfied that there has been an infraction of the statutoryprovision and that too, of the basic requirement of anopportunity of being heard. Since the principles of naturaljustice have been violated, this Court is of the view that thepetitioner need not be relegated to the statutory remediesat this instance. If the impugned order is set aside and afresh opportunity is granted, the same would cater to theneeds of law. 6.Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the 1[[st]]respondent to pass fresh orders, after issuing proper noticefor hearing and after granting an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner, in accordance with law. The same shall bedone within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this judgment. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the 1[[st]] This writ petition is allowed as above. Skk//03052021 Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL