Ubaid P.T vs The Income Tax Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 2805 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          UBAID P.T.
          AGED 44 YEARS
          PROPRIETOR, U.K.INDUSTRIES, 11/449A, KUNDAYITHODU,
          KOLATHARA (POST), KOZHIKODE - 673 655.

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



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
          WARD 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE,
          SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

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

          BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022
                                       2




                             T.R.RAVI, J.
                     ----------------------------------------
                       WP (C) No.11525 of 2022
                    -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 01st day of March, 2023

                            JUDGMENT

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 order

issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is an assessment order

which was assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not

get sufficient time to put forward his case. It is contended

that the draft assessment order granted only 24 hours' time

to the petitioner for filing objections. The petitioner had

preferred Ext.P2 seeking adjournment as well as for personal

hearing. It was not considered by the 2nd respondent while

issuing the assessment order. The main ground on which the

order is challenged is, violation of the principles of natural

justice. Even though there is an objection taken in the writ

petition that the assessment proceedings are barred by

limitation, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner will be satisfied if sufficient time is granted to him WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022

for responding to the draft assessment order. The Standing

Counsel for the department fairly submitted that time can be

granted since it is apparent from the order that only 24

hours' time was granted.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is set

aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh draft

assessment orders in accordance with law, after giving

sufficient time to the petitioner to respond.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11525/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, NFAC, KOZHIKODE.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS      :    NIL


                  //TRUE COPY//             PA TO JUDGE