Wp(C)/29487/2022 Of Tdgsm Co-Operative Society Ltd No.r.1112 v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
05 Dec 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/29487/2022 Of Tdgsm Co-Operative Society Ltd No.r.1112 v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
05 Dec 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/29487/2022 Of Tdgsm Co-Operative Society Ltd No.r.1112 v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open tothe petitioner to avail remedy of appeal if any, or such otherremedies are available.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945WP(C) NO. 29487 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
TDGSM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.R.1112, PARAKKOTT LANE, PATTURAIKKAL, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY JAINY JACOB, PIN - 680022BY ADVS.V.P.NARAYANANALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DCIT CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS , AAYKAR BHAVAN , INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR , THRISSUR, PIN - 680001DCIT CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS , AAYKAR BHAVAN , INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR , THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOMETAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX/INCOMETAX OFFICER,
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003BY ADVS.DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003BY ADVS.
ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJ
KEERTHIVAS GIRI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 2023
1.The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P2assessment order and demand.
2.The petitioner assessee did not file the returns of theassessment year 2016-2017. As per the information receivedthrough Multi-layer NMS cases in AIMS module of ITBA, thepetitioner case was selected noticing the huge cash deposit duringthe financial year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The assessment of thepetitioner case was reopened by issuance of notice under Section148 of the Income Tax 1961 ( the ‘IT Act’ for short). In response tothe said notice, the petitioner had filed return of income for theassessment year 2016-2017 on 29.04.2021, declaring total incomeat ‘Nil’ after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA (80P) of Rs.2,64,133/-. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued notices underSection 142(1) of the IT Act dated 08.07.2021 and 18.11.2021.However, the petitioner failed to respond with the notices. Finallyone more opportunity by the notice under Section 142(1) of the Actwas given to the petitioner on 24.02.2022. The petitioner did notavail of the opportunities of being heard, and the petitioner did notcooperate with the proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view of thetime limit to complete the assessment, the best judgment
assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the IT Actexparte, the petitioner did not submit the return in response to thenotice under Section under Section 148 of the IT Act.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner did not receive the notice. However, this contentioncannot be accepted in view of the system which has been placed forcommunication of notices , orders etc., therefore I do not find anyground to entertain this writ petition against the impugnedassessment order.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open tothe petitioner to avail remedy of appeal if any, or such otherremedies are available. If the petitioner approached the appellate,the appellate authority should proceed to decide the appeal inaccordance with law, expeditiously.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGHJUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29487/2022
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner did not receive the notice. However, this contentioncannot be accepted in view of the system which has been placed forcommunication of notices , orders etc., therefore I do not find anyground to entertain this writ petition against the impugnedassessment order.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open tothe petitioner to avail remedy of appeal if any, or such otherremedies are available. If the petitioner approached the appellate,the appellate authority should proceed to decide the appeal inaccordance with law, expeditiously.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGHJUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29487/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY BY JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPSOCIETIES (GENERAL) THRISSURExhibit P2TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.3.2022 FOR AY 2016-17Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.8.2022ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTExhibit P3(a)TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO NOTICE DT 10.8.2022 UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(B) DATED 18.08.2022Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READWITH SECTION 271(1)(C) DATED 10-08-2022Exhibit P4(a)TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 10-08-2022 UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) DATED 18-08-2022Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10-08-2022 UNDERSECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271BExhibit P5(a)TRUE COPY OF REPLYDT 18-08-2022 TO NOTICE DATED 10-08-2022 UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271B SECTIONExhibit P6TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10-08-2022 UNDERSECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271FExhibit P6(a)TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18-08-2022 TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION271F DATED 10-08-2022
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.