Case Law Details
Muhammed Kallat Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
1. Background: The petitioner, an NRI, had a 75% ownership stake in a mall constructed in partnership. The ADIT Investigation wing conducted a verification, revealing significant investments. The petitioner, being an eligible assessee, received a draft assessment order and the opportunity to file objections within thirty days.
2. Request for Extension: The petitioner failed to submit objections within the stipulated thirty days and sought additional time. However, Sections 143(3) and (4) of the Income Tax Act do not provide provisions for extending the objection filing period. Consequently, the objection request was not entertained, leading to the issuance of the impugned assessment orders.
3. Court’s Observation: The court, upon thorough examination, concluded that the absence of a specific provision in the Income Tax Act prohibits the extension of the thirty-day limit for filing objections against draft assessment orders. Acknowledging the procedural adherence by the Disputes Resolution Panel and the assessing authority, the court found no legal infringement or violation of natural justice.
4. Dismissal of Writ Petitions: The court, based on the absence of legal grounds, dismissed the writ petitions. However, the petitioner was granted the option to pursue statutory appeal if deemed necessary.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
The Judgement did not mention when the draft AO was issued or received and when did the extension sought. Secondly, if.an extension is sought then a prayer as to first not accepting the Draft AO sentence should have added. Once non acceptance of the Draft AO is mentioned then it would stand at merit that it is not accepted stand. Limitation is not bypassed. Once objection as to the Not Acceptable will change the whole scenario of the case. Who guide the assesses? No means No and Not acceptance is Not acceptance. After that why will come.