Case Law Details
Mallisseri Neelakandan Sankaranunni Namboodiri Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO (Kerala High Court)
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court addressed a case involving the appellant, Mallisseri Neelakandan Sankaranunni Namboodiri, who challenged an assessment order passed by the respondent. The court’s ruling highlights the importance of considering the reply of the assessee before making any assessment decisions. This article delves into the details of the case and the court’s judgment.
Background: Mallisseri Neelakandan Sankaranunni Namboodiri, an agriculturist, filed tax returns for the assessment year 2020-21 under the Income Tax Act. The respondent, an Income Tax Officer, initiated a scrutiny of these returns and issued a pre-assessment notice, seeking the appellant’s objections. However, the appellant’s responses to previous notices were lacking, with a reply received only after a delay.
Assessment Order: Despite the delay, the appellant did submit a reply dated 22.09.2022 before the assessment order was passed (Ext.P3). The primary contention of the appellant was that the reply should have been considered by the respondent while making the assessment decision.
Court’s Findings: The High Court, in its analysis, acknowledged the delay in the appellant’s reply but emphasized that the reply, dated 23.09.2022 (Ext.P2), was received in the respondent’s office before the assessment order (Ext.P3) was issued. The court emphasized the importance of fairness in tax matters and concluded that the Assessing Authority should have referred to the reply and addressed its contents when passing the assessment order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
