Wp(C)/14800/2018 Of Sri.t.p.varkey v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 14800 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SRI.T.P.VARKEY PROPRIETOR, T.P CONSTRUCTIONS, AVM COMPLEX, CHIRANGARA, KORATTY, SOUTH P.O. THRISSUR-680 308 BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-08-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22-09-2017 OF THE RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2015-16 22-09-2017 OF THE RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-03-2018 OF THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-03-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: das NIL // True copy // PA to Judge DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 14800 of 2018 (Y) ======================================================= Dated this the 8[th] day of August, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an income tax accessee, faced penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income TaxAct. In response to the Ext.P3 notice, the petitionerappeared on the allotted date. But the matter, as thepetitioner puts it, could not be taken up because theOfficer concerned was absent. Later, the Departmentissued the Ext.P6 demand notice, but without any furtherhearing. The petitioner contends that the Ext.P6 violatesthe statutory mandate under Section 274 of the Act:opportunity of hearing. 2.In response to the submissions made by the petitioner'scounsel, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted thatthe petitioner has raised only technical objections andthey have no substance. W.P.(C). No. 14800 of 2018 (Y) -2- 3.That said, the fact remains that the petitioner did appear in response to the Department's Ext.P3 notice, besidessubmitting the Ext.P4 reply. The Ext.P6 demand noticedoes not precede any hearing, as contemplated underSection 274 of the Act. And the Department does notdeny that. submitting the Ext.P4 reply. The Ext.P6 demand noticedoes not precede any hearing, as contemplated underSection 274 of the Act. And the Department does notdeny that. 4.Under these circumstances, it serves the interest ofjustice if Ext.P6 is set aside and the petitioner is given anopportunity to hearing. I do so. justice if Ext.P6 is set aside and the petitioner is given anopportunity to hearing. I do so. 5.As a result, the Department will put the petitioner onnotice afresh and hear him before taking any furthersteps. With these observations, I dispose of this writpetition. notice afresh and hear him before taking any furthersteps. With these observations, I dispose of this writpetition. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE