Wp(C)/3592/2018 Of Mahew K. Cherian v. The Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3592 of 2018 ------------------- PETITIONER(S)-------------- MATHEW K.CHERIAN,S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 62 YEARS,KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM. P.O.,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 018. BY ADV.SRI.R.RAMADAS. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2017 FROM THE RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// rs. P.S. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR,J ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.3592 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 2[nd] day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax,1961 (the Act) on the rolls of the respondent. Proceedingshave been initiated for revising the self assessment made bythe petitioner under Section 143(3) of the Act and thepetitioner has been issued notice under Section 143(2) of theAct on 22.09.2016. The petitioner sent a reply to the noticeunder Section 143(2) on 26.12.2016. It is conceded that therewas a hearing thereafter and later, the petitioner has beenissued Ext.P1 notice by the respondent directing him to showcause why the sum of Rs.11,13,52,085/- referred to thereinshall not be assessed as the income of the petitioner fromother sources as provided for under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of theAct. The petitioner received Ext.P1 notice on 30.12.2017. It ishis case that though he sent Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1 notice on30.12.2017 itself, Ext.P3 order has been passed thereafter onthe premise that the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P1notice. The petitioner, therefore, challenges, Ext.P3 order inthis proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India W.P.(C).No.3592 of 2018 : 2 : on the ground that the same is vitiated for non-compliance ofthe principles of natural justice, though the petitioner has aright of appeal under the Act against the said order. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3.Though there is a recital in Ext.P3 order that the petitioner has not responded to Ext.P1 notice, a closereading of Ext.P3 order indicates that the contention taken bythe petitioner in Ext.P2 reply sent by him to Ext.P1 notice hasbeen adverted to by the respondent in Ext.P3 order. Further,Ext.P3 order is one rendered after affording the petitioner anopportunity of hearing. In the said circumstances, I do not findany justification for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 order onthe ground that the same is vitiated for non-compliance of theprinciples of natural justice. The writ petition is dismissedwithout prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appealagainst the impugned order under the statute. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR,JUDGE