Wp(C)/38336/2018 Of Aniyan Mathew v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940WP(C).No. 38336 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: ANIYAN MATHEW,AGED 62 YEARSS/O M.V. MATHEW MANGALATH HOUSE, CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 008. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)SMT.NISHA JOHNSRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNANSRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee, submitted his returns for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Later, the Assistant Commissioner of the Income WPC No.38336 of 2018 2 Tax issued the Exts.P1 and P3 notices. On receiving them, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P2 request to the Assistant Commissioner. He wantedto know on what basis the department issued the notices under Section148. According to the petitioner, if the reasons were supplied, he couldgive an effective reply. Then, the Assistant Commissioner issued Exts.P4and P5 replies. Eventually, the petitioner also submitted Exts.P6 and P7objections. 2. At any rate, the petitioner apprehends that before the authority could rule on the petitioner's objections, he will finalise the assessmentproceedings. So the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has issued the Exts.P1 and P3 notices after a long lapse of time. With that lapse of time, it isimpossible for the petitioner to provide an effective defence to thenotices the department issued under Section 148. In this regard, thelearned Senior Counsel the petitioner has drawn my attention to theApex Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v Income TaxOfficer[1]. 4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn my WPC No.38336 of 2018 3 attention to Exts.P7 and P8 objections. He asserts that the writ petition is based on mere apprehension. The authorities will consider theobjections and rule on them before they finalise the proceedings, headds. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the authorities will consider the petitioner's Exts.P6 and P7objections, keeping in view, as the petitioner pleads, the Apex Courtjudgment in GKN Driveshafts (india)'s case, and then finalise theproceedings. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.3.2018 FOR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORTHE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.4.2018 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.3.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER F NO ACIT/CIR 1(1) 147/AEWPM0430L/2019-19 DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED WPC No.38336 of 2018 4 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO ACIT/CIR-1(1) 147/AEWPM 0430L/2018-19 DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13.