Kerala High Court
The Police Co-Operative Society ... vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 7158 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
POLICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO T-696,
15 1961, SREE PADMAM, THYCAUD,
VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW-DELHI-110001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW-DELHI-110001,
NEW-DELHI-110001
OTHER PRESENT:
CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC FOR I.T.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7158 OF 2022
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
===========================
W.P.(C) No.7158 of 2022
============================
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued under
Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the petitioner
to furnish the accounts and documents specified in the annexure to
Ext.P3 by 01.54 p.m., on or before 03.03.2022.
2. Petitioner had filed its return of income for the
assessment year 2020-21 on 13.02.2021. By notice dated
28.02.2022, petitioner was directed to furnish further details within
three days.
3. A perusal of the said notice shows that it was issued on
28.02.2022. Thus, it is evident that the time granted to the
petitioner for responding to the notice was only three days of which
two days fell on Saturday and Sunday. It is also revealed from
Ext.P3 notice that the issue relates to the assessment year 2020-21
WP(C) NO. 7158 OF 2022
and hence, there is no question of any bar of limitation setting in.
If the petitioner is granted a breathing time to respond to the notice,
no prejudice will be caused to the revenue.
4. After hearing Sri.Vishnu B.Kurup, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the
respondents, Shri.Christopher Abraham, I am satisfied that this is a
clear instance of an intrusion into the rights of an assessee to have a
breathing time to respond to a notice. Time and again Courts of
law have directed that two days time to respond to a notice is too
minimal a period, unless the period of limitation stares at the face
of the assessee and such grant of minimal period is a violation of
the principles of natural justice.
5. In the absence of any period of limitation applicable in
the instant case, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be
granted a reasonable time of thirty days to respond to the notice.
6. Accordingly, the time stipulated in Ext.P3 notice dated
28.02.2022 to respond, shall stand extended till 03-04-2022. If the
petitioner files the required response contemplated under Ext.P3
WP(C) NO. 7158 OF 2022
notice, within the said period, necessarily, respondents shall act in
accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ssa/
WP(C) NO. 7158 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.7158 OF 2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.02.2022
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E-PROCEEDINGS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.02.2022
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
