Case Law Details
Koyambrath Puthiyapurayil Mohammed Kunhiaged Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has quashed a reassessment order issued to Koyambrath Puthiyapurayil Mohammed Kunhiaged, citing a violation of mandatory provisions under the Income Tax Act. The court found that the notice issued to the petitioner did not adhere to the prescribed timeline, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the case and its implications.
Background of the Case: The petitioner, Koyambrath Puthiyapurayil Mohammed Kunhiaged, is a Non-Resident Indian employed abroad. The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 due to non-filing of income tax returns. The department issued a notice dated 19.03.2022, under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, informing the petitioner that income chargeable to tax for the said assessment year had escaped assessment.
The notice mentioned that the petitioner had purchased immovable properties and a vehicle, and the source of cash utilized for these acquisitions remained unexplained. The petitioner was given until 24.03.2022, only four days, to respond to the show cause notice.
Subsequently, an ex parte assessment order was finalized on 30.03.2022, under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act, as the petitioner failed to respond within the limited timeframe. The assessment order concluded that the petitioner had not filed income tax returns and the source of funds for the property and vehicle purchases remained unexplained.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
