Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 12456 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S:
THE ARUVIKKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.603, HEAD OFFICE BUILDING, ARUVIKKARA P.O., ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE MS. RUDEENA, PIN - 695564 BY ADVS.
ADITYA UNNIKRISHNAN ANIL D. NAIR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD –2 (3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001 BY ADVS.
P.G.JAYASHANKAR G.KEERTHIVAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ADITYA UNNIKRISHNAN, ANIL D. NAIR (SR.), P.G.JAYASHANKAR, G.KEERTHIVAS
The court established that a fair opportunity to be heard is essential in tax assessment appeals, especially when similar cases have been favorably decided.
Headnote:
Income Tax - Assessment Appeal - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections related to assessment and appeals - The court allowed the petitioner's appeal restoration based on the principle of fair hearing, considering previous favorable judgments and the importance of proper notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their appeal against an assessment order, claiming they did not receive the notice for the hearing due to it being sent to their registered email.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of not receiving the email but acknowledged that similar appeals had been allowed previously, warranting a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present their case before the Appellate Authority due to non-receipt of the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair hearing and the need to allow the petitioner to contest the matter on merits, especially given the precedent set by previous favorable judgments.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, restoring the appeal for a fresh hearing.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner preferred Ext.p2 appeal which has been dismissed by Ext.P3 order. According to the petitioner the petitioner could not appear before the Appellate Authority and appraise the Appellate Authority the correct position of law on account of the fact that the notice issued by the Appellate Authority had not been received by the petitioner.
2. The learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the contention that the notice issued by the Appellate Authority were not received by the petitioner cannot be accepted. He submits that the notices were sent to the registered E-mail ID of the petitioner. He also produced screen shorts which show that the E-mail sent by the Appellate Authority were actually delivered to the registered E-mail ID of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in reply that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner to address the arguments before the Appellate Authority especially since the appeals filed by the petitioner for other assessment years have been allowed by the Appellate Authority and the main issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another; 2021 (1) KHC 303 (SC) .
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I am of the view that though there is no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner that it had not received the E-mail sent by the Appellate Authority regarding the hearing of the appeal, considering the submission that appeals where identical questions arose were already allowed by the Appellate Authority and also taking into consideration of the submission that the main issue stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi (supra), I am of the view that one further opportunity can be given to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits before the Appellate Authority.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order of the Appellate Authority will stand quashed. Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order of assessment will stand restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders on the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner should update its registered E-mail ID on the Income Tax portal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observations in this judgment only for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. It will be open to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law.
