Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8340 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2022
W.P(C).11459/22 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 11459 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
PULIYASSERY SASIDHARAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, NEAR MERCY COLLEGE, VENKITESWARA
GARDENS, PALLAKKAD 678 641
BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON
MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX OFFICER
NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001
BY ADVS.
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).11459/22 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of
assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 issued under Section 144B of the
Income Tax Act (Faceless Assessment).
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
on receipt of Ext.P1 draft assessment order, the petitioner requested for time to
submit a reply, as is evident from Exts.P2 and P3. It is submitted that despite
asking for an adjournment almost immediately after receiving Ext.P1 and
despite the fact that the same was acknowledged by Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order of
assessment was issued on 07.3.2022 without noticing the fact that the
petitioner had requested for an adjournment.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent department
would contend that every possible opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is
submitted that prior to the transfer of files to the Faceless Assessment Centre,
the petitioner had been issued with notice under Section 142 which had been
served on the petitioner by speed post. It is submitted that the delivery of
notice earlier by speed post was on account of the fact that the petitioner failed
to respond to a notice sent via email. It is submitted that the petitioner is
purposefully delaying the proceedings and is, therefore, not entitled to any
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that
the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal against Ext.P5 order.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department and taking note of
Exts.P2, P3 and P4, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted an
opportunity to respond to Ext.P1 draft assessment order before the proceedings
are finalised against him. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand set aside with a direction
to the respondent to provide a link to enable the petitioner to upload his reply.
If the petitioner submits a reply within five days from the date on which the
link is provided to him, the assessment shall be completed afresh after
considering the reply given by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, if the same is requested for. If the petitioner does
not submit a reply within five days from the date on which a link is provided to
him, as above, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment
and in that event Ext.P5 will be treated as restored.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE okb/1.7.22 //True copy// P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11459/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE WEBPAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF SYSTEM GENERATED E MAIL Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!