Case Law Details
Janayugam Publications Ltd Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of an appeal filed by Janayugam Publications Ltd against the assessment order for the year 2011-12, which had remained unresolved for nearly eight years. The petitioner initially declared nil income, but the assessment order dated March 24, 2016, assessed taxable income at ₹41,48,560. Challenging this, the petitioner filed an appeal in April 2016, but no decision was made. The petitioner sought a directive from the court for a time-bound disposal of the appeal.
The Income Tax Department claimed that the petitioner had not responded to a hearing notice issued in January 2021 and had not completed the digital submission of appeal-related documents, which was necessary under the faceless regime. The court acknowledged this but noted the prolonged delay. It directed the department to resolve the appeal within four months, provided the petitioner uploads the required documents within 30 days. The appeal must be disposed of after granting the petitioner an effective hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
In respect of the assessment year 2011-2012, petitioner had declared nil income. However, by Ext.P1 assessment order dated 24.03.2016, petitioner’s total income for the aforesaid year was assessed at Rs.41,48,560/-. Challenging the order of assessment and the consequential demand, an appeal was filed before the second respondent as early as in April, 2016. The limited prayed now sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to dispose of the appeal in a time bound manner.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents pointing out that after the appeal was filed, no request for hearing was made by the petitioner as alleged in the writ petition, and further that the records related to the appeal have been partially digitized, and a hearing notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.01.2021 which was not responded to. It is also stated that, once a hearing notice is issued and the communication window is enabled, the assessee is allowed to make submissions through the window. However, till date no such steps have been taken by the petitioner. It is further stated that, absence of original digital footprints of the appeal and its connected papers creates difficulty in disposing of the same and that if the petitioner submits/uploads the required documents, the appeal can be disposed of at the earliest.
3. Sri. Geen T. Mathew, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite the appeal having been filed almost eight years ago, the respondents have not initiated any steps to dispose of the same. It was also submitted that, though an intimation was received that the appeal has been transferred to the third respondent, thereafter no communication has been received.
4. The learned Standing counsel reiterated the submissions as averred in the statement.
5. A reading of the statement of the respondents indicates that the appeal filed by the petitioner in the physical format in the year 2016 has not been completely digitized, which prevents the respondents from disposing of the appeal especially after coming into force of the Faceless Regime. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will upload the required documents in the digital format at the earliest, not later than 30 days from today, I am of the view that the appeal can be directed to be disposed of.
In view of the above, respondents are directed to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal against the assessment order for the year 2011-2012, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from today; provided the petitioner uploads the required documents within 30 days from today. Needless to mention that the appeal shall be disposed of, after granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Author Bio
