IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 18TH BHADRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 22310 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

KARTHIKEYAN A.N., AGED 47 YEARS

1, DEVI KRIPAYIL, NEAR FANTASY PARK, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.

BY ADV MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT:

THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100 001.

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI. CYRIAC TOM (SC)

SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 on the ground that the said order was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 14.09.2021 was never served, as a result of which the petitioner was unable to file his reply, leading to the completion of assessment and finalization of the demand as proposed in Ext.P2 show cause notice without the benefit of any reply from the petitioner.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that the show cause notice was issued to the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner, which was the e-mail ID of his Chartered Accountant. It is submitted that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the Assessing Authority was forced to complete the assessment, without having the benefit of any reply from the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply, would submit that Ext.P2 show cause notice is dated

14.09.2021 and calls upon the petitioner to submit a reply by 16.09.2021. It is submitted that Ext.P1 order has been issued on the very next day, that is 17.09.2021 and this by itself is sufficient to hold that the order was issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to reply to show cause notice before the assessment is completed against the petitioner. I am inclined to take this view on account of the fact that Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued only on 14.09.2021 and called upon the petitioner to submit a reply by 16.09.2021. The assessment has been completed on 17.09.2021 without having the benefit of any reply filed by the petitioner. While, strictly, the order cannot be said to be one issued in violation of principles of natural justice, considering the fact that the time between the issuance of show cause notice and the date fixed for reply was only two days and also considering the fact that the order was issued on the very next day, I am of the opinion that one further opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to reply to Ext.P2 show cause notice. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of quashing Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 and directing that if the petitioner were to file a reply to Ext.P2 show cause notice, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, fresh orders shall be passed, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If the portal is required to be opened for enabling the petitioner to file a reply, the same shall also be enabled by the competent authority.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE DK APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22310/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 Exhibit P2 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RETURN OF INCOME ANNEXURE