Case Law Details
ITO Vs Mohammed Noushad (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court addressed the necessity of a personal hearing prior to passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The case, ITO Vs Mohammed Noushad, involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge.
Detailed Analysis: The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by Mohammed Noushad, contesting an order (Ext.P5) passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kalpetta, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, and the consequential notice (Ext.P6) proposing a re-assessment of income for the assessment year 2016-17.
The crux of the petitioner’s challenge was the absence of a personal hearing before the issuance of Ext.P5 order. The learned Single Judge concurred, ruling that Section 148A of the IT Act mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and failure to do so vitiates the impugned orders and consequential notices.
The appellant, however, argued that a personal hearing is not mandatory for an inquiry under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The Division Bench, in a recent judgment (Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited), held that the opportunity of being heard under Section 148A must include the right of personal hearing. This precedent applied to the present case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
