Shini Satheeshkumar vs The Income Tax Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 6136 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 17272 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SHINI SATHEESHKUMAR,
          AGED 48 YEARS
          9/485 MP KALAM, MANNAMPALLAM, NENMENI POST, KOLLENGODE,
          PALAKKAD-678506.

          BY ADVS.
          HARISANKAR V. MENON
          MEERA V.MENON



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
          WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,
          PALAKKAD-678014.

    2     PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
          AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.


OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) Nos.17272 &17268 of 2022          2

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 17268 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRIPAD,
             AGED 61 YEARS
             KOZHISSERI MANA, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD-679121.

             BY ADVS.
             HARISANKAR V. MENON
             MEERA V.MENON
             R.SREEJITH
             K.KRISHNA



RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
             WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENDLIGH CHURCH ROAD,
             PALAKKAD-678014.

      2      PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
             AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.


OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC)




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   01.06.2022,     THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) Nos.17272 &17268 of 2022     3



                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners in these cases are assessees under the Income

Tax Act. Since identical issues arise for consideration in these

cases and they can be conveniently disposed of by the

common judgment.

2. In both these cases the petitioners were issued with

notices under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act, requiring

the petitioners to show cause as to why reassessment

proceedings should not be initiated against them. These

notices are dated 25-03-2022. In W.P(C) No.17272/2022, the

assessee was required to show cause by 01-04-2022 while in

W.P.(C) No.17268/2022 the assessee was required to show

cause by 31-03-2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these

cases would submit that the provisions of Section 148 require

that a minimum 7 days time has to be granted to the assessees

to reply to the show cause notices. It is submitted in W.P(C)

No.17272/2022, the assessee received the notice only on 01-

04-2022, while in W.P(C) No.17268/2022 the assessee

received the notice on 30-03-2022. The only contentions

therefore is that sufficient time was not granted to reply to the

show cause notice.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the

Income Tax Department department vehemently opposes the

grant of any relief. It is submitted that even assuming that the

physical copies of the notices were received by the respective

assessees only on the dates specified above, it cannot be said

that sufficient notice as required by the provisions Section

148A were not given as the notices were uploaded in the

system and were sent to the registered Email Ids of the

respective assessees on 25-03-2022 itself. He has also placed

certain documents before me to show that the notices had

been uploaded on 25-03-2022 itself. In short his contentions is

that for the purposes of determining whether sufficient time

was given to the assessees to reply should be determined with

reference to the date 25-03-2022 and not the date on which

the assessees claimed to have received the notices by post.

5. This is not a case were the proceedings are bared

by limitation even if the date of receipt of notice is determined

to be any other date other than 25-03-2022. The petitioners

have a statutory right to reply to the notices within 7 days of

its receipt. Though there is substantial merit in the contention

taken by the learned counsel for the department that the

notices having been sent to the registered Email Ids of the

assessees on 25-03-2022 that, must be taken as a relevant

date, I am of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to

the department by affording an opportunity to the petitioners

to reply to the show cause notice within a period of 7 days. In

the result Ext.P3 order in both cases will stand set aside and

the officer concerned shall take a fresh decision in the matter

after giving 7 days time to the petitioners to reply to the show

cause notice. The petitioners shall submit their replies on or

before07-06-2022 and a fresh decision shall be taken

thereafter in accordance with law.

These Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17272/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 25/03/2022.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT LIST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 06/04/2022.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/04/2022.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17268/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 25/03/2022.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT LIST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 07/04/2022.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/04/2022.