Wp(C)/30209/2022 Of Pareed Abdul Salam v. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income-Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH THURSDAY, THE 11 DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945WP(C) NO. 30209 OF 2022 PETITIONER: PAREED ABDUL SALAM,CHELAPEERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P. O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686121. BY ADVS. SRI. A. KUMAR SRI. P. J. ANIL KUMAR, SC, KPHCC SMT. G. MINI(1748) SRI. P. S. SREE PRASAD SRI. JOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX / INCOME-TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001. 3INDUS IND BANK LIMITED,FIRST FLOOR, JAIN TOWER-II, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, NH 17 BYPASS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN – 680024. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH – SC - INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30209 of 2022 ------------------------- Dated this the 11[th] day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT 1.The present writ petition has been filed impugning the ShowCause Notice and assessment order in Exhibits P-1 and P-2 respectivelyunder the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as the IT Act,1961 for short). The petitioner’s case was selectedunder ‘AIMS’ (Actionable Information Management System) category ofcases in ITBA (Income Tax Business Application). On verification of thedata, it was noticed that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,27,97,300/-in cash in one account maintained in Indusind Bank Limited and in twoaccounts maintained in Punjab National Bank. In the return filed by thepetitioner, the petitioner did not explain the cash deposit ofRs. 1,27,97,300/- and, therefore, the case was re-opened by issuingnotice under Section 148 of the IT Act,1961 on 29.03.2021. Thepetitioner was issued several notices under Section 142 (1) of the ITAct,1961. However, the petitioner did not filed any reply tosubstantiate the cash deposit of the said amount of Rs. 1,27,97,300/-.The petitioner had also made payment of Rs. 22,300/- to New Delhi UP Road Carrier Private Limited. As the petitioner did not come forward in pursuance to several notices, the assessment order came to be finalisedadding the said transactions as income from other sources underSection 69A read with Section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Thepetitioner’s total assessed income was Rs. 1,28,19,600/- on which thetax, interest and penalty has been demanded. The penalty proceedingshave been initiated and penalty order in Exhibit P-13 has been passedunder Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 dated 23.09.2022. 2.The petitioner has remedy of filing appeal against the assessment and penalty order under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and thisCourt, therefore finds no ground to interfere with the assessment orderor penalty order. 3.At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner andsubmitted that the petitioner has moved application under Section 254of the IT Act, 1961 for rectification of the assessment order in Exhibit P-6 and a direction may be issued to the assessing authority to passappropriate order on Exhibit P-6 rectification petition/application. 4.Considering the said prayer, the writ petition so far as challengeto the assessment order and penalty order is concerned, it is dismissedwith liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the said order. However, a direction is issued to the 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents, as the case may be, to consider and pass appropriateorder in Exhibit P-6 rectification petition/application filed by thepetitioner under Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961 expeditiously,preferably within a period of two months. Svn Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30209/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS 4.Considering the said prayer, the writ petition so far as challengeto the assessment order and penalty order is concerned, it is dismissedwith liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the said order. However, a direction is issued to the 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents, as the case may be, to consider and pass appropriateorder in Exhibit P-6 rectification petition/application filed by thepetitioner under Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961 expeditiously,preferably within a period of two months. Svn Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30209/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED16.03.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-1816.03.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED29.03.202229.03.2022 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE INDUS INDBANK FOR THE PERIOD 20/11/2014 TO 01/04/2017BANK FOR THE PERIOD 20/11/2014 TO 01/04/2017 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PUNJABNATIONAL BANKNATIONAL BANK EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INDUS INDBANK DATED 06.09.2022BANK DATED 06.09.2022 EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED12.09.202212.09.2022 EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED12.09.202212.09.2022 EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.08.2022 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271AAC(1)BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271AAC(1) EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.08.2022 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 270ABY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 270A EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERDATED: NILDATED: NIL EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2022 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENTBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/09/2022OF THIS HON’BLE COURTOF THIS HON’BLE COURT EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 23/09/2022