Case Law Details
A. E. Varghese Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by A. E. Varghese challenging an Income Tax notice. The petitioner contested the order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the assessment year 2015-16. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the court’s decision and the key arguments presented during the hearing.
Detailed Analysis: The crux of the petitioner’s argument rested on the alleged non-receipt of notice for the appeal hearing. Despite providing a postal address for their counsel, the petitioner claimed neither the counsel nor they received any intimation. The court, however, refuted this, emphasizing the automated system in place. Notices were not only uploaded on the portal but also sent via email and SMS alerts in real-time, using the details provided by the assessee.
The assessment order revealed a significant cash deposit in the petitioner’s savings accounts, leading to an addition of Rs.53,03,000 as income due to the failure to prove the source. The dismissal of the writ petition was grounded in the court’s belief that the petitioner’s argument lacked substance.
While the petitioner’s appeal was rejected, the court granted the option to seek remedy before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) within three weeks. The ITAT was instructed to consider the appeal promptly, bypassing discussions on the question of limitation.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s decision in A. E. Varghese Vs CIT sheds light on the importance of complying with the automated systems for notice dissemination. The dismissal of the writ petition serves as a reminder for assessees to be vigilant about the details provided and to explore statutory remedies, such as approaching the ITAT. This case underscores the significance of timely and accurate communication in the realm of income tax disputes, emphasizing the need for assessees to actively engage in the appeal process within the stipulated timelines.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Heard Ms. Nikitha Susan Paulson, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. P. R. Ajithkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 31.8.2023, Ext.P2, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’, for short) by the first respondent in an appeal filed against the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that even though the petitioner had given postal address of his counsel, it appears that neither his counsel nor the petitioner did receive notice of hearing of the appeal.
3. Assessment order is of the assessment year 2015-16. The assessment got completed on 28.12.2017 by the assessing officer. During the course of the assessment, it was observed that the petitioner had a cash deposit of Rs.1,24,25,000/- in the savings bank accounts with the ICICI Bank (Rs.1,15,25,000/-) and Canara Bank (Rs.9,00,000/-). Out of the aforesaid amount, since the petitioner/assessee failed to prove source for Rs.53,03,000/-, the said amount was added as income of the petitioner/assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal. E-mail address of the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner and phone number of the petitioner were given, which are available/reflected in the portal. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive intimation regarding hearing of the appeal is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as under the system followed, every notice is not only uploaded in the portal, but also sent by the Department through the e-mail address given by the assessee with real time SMS alert in the mobile number provided by the assessee. These are automated system without any humanitarian efforts. Therefore, I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive intimation/ notice regarding hearing of the appeal. The present writ petition is dismissed, as there has been no substance.
4. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under the statute before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the impugned appellate order. If the petitioner files appeal before the ITAT within a period of three weeks, the ITAT shall consider the appeal and take a decision expeditiously, in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
