Kerala HC Dismissed writ alleging lack of hearing notice; As notices were sent to provided email IDs

Sham Basheer Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)

In the realm of legal proceedings, the guarantee of due process stands as a cornerstone of justice. Recently, the Kerala High Court grappled with this fundamental principle in the case of Sham Basheer versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, raised concerns over the lack of a hearing notice preceding the assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. However, the court’s verdict shed light on the significance of providing accurate contact information and the efficacy of electronic communication in legal proceedings.

Background: Sham Basheer’s grievance stemmed from what he perceived as a procedural lapse: the absence of a communication notifying him of the impending assessment orders. The petitioner contended that no opportunity for a hearing was afforded before the orders were passed. This omission, in his view, violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Detailed Analysis: Delving into the specifics of the case, the court examined the documentation provided by the respondent. It was revealed that Sham Basheer had indeed furnished multiple email IDs at various stages of the proceedings, including during the filing of returns and appeals. Notably, notices had been dispatched to these email addresses, as evidenced by records.

Of particular significance was the petitioner’s latest email ID, provided during the appeal process for the assessment year 2017-18. Communications pertaining to this appeal were successfully transmitted to and acknowledged by the petitioner, indicating that the provided email address was indeed functional and accessible to him.

Court’s Ruling: In light of the evidence presented, the court dismissed Sham Basheer’s assertion of not receiving a hearing notice. The comprehensive documentation showcased a diligent effort on the part of the authorities to ensure communication through the channels provided by the petitioner himself. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms while also recognizing the advancements in communication technology that enable efficient correspondence.

Implications and Significance: The verdict of the Kerala High Court holds significance beyond the immediate case. It underscores the necessity for parties involved in legal proceedings to furnish accurate and up-to-date contact information. In an era dominated by electronic communication, the onus is on individuals to ensure the accessibility of their designated communication channels.

Furthermore, the case highlights the evolving landscape of legal procedures, wherein traditional modes of communication are supplemented by digital platforms. The court’s reliance on email correspondence as a legitimate means of notification reflects a broader trend towards embracing technological advancements to streamline legal processes.

Conclusion: In essence, the Kerala High Court’s decision in Sham Basheer versus CIT reaffirms the foundational principles of due process and procedural fairness. By dismissing the writ alleging a lack of hearing notice, the court upholds the integrity of the legal system while also acknowledging the efficacy of electronic communication. Moving forward, this case serves as a reminder to all stakeholders of the importance of maintaining accurate contact information and embracing technological solutions to ensure the smooth functioning of legal proceedings.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-1 5, the petitioner had filed appeals. The said appeals have been disposed of vide Exhibit P-2 series of orders.

2. The only ground which has been taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and no communication for hearing was sent to the petitioner by the appellate authority before passing the impugned Exhibit P-2 series orders on petitioner’s appeals against the assessment orders in Exhibit P-1 In response to the notice issued and directions passed by this Court in Orders dated 26.11.2023 and 30.11.2023, a statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the statement, petitioner has given as many as five e-mail ids as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the statement, which is extracted hereunder for perusal;

2. The following Email ids have been provided by the appellant at various stages (filing of returns, filing of appeals etc.) before the department and have been registered with the department. The details of such are given as under;

3. It is further stated that the latest e-mail id given by the petitioner at the time of filing of appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 is ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’. The petitioner has been issued notices of hearing on the latest e-mail id as well as another e-mail id i.e. shamafcetm r @yahoo.com which is the latest e-mail id given in on the return for the latest assessment year and notices have been sent on the said e-mail id as is disclosed in paragraph 3, wrongly numbered as 2 in the statement. It is further stated that in response to the appeal in respect of the assessment year where the e-mail id has been given as ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ petitioner has submitted online response on 30.01.2023. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot turn around and say he did not receive any notices of hearing in respect of the appeals against assessment orders in Exhibit P-1 series when the petitioner himself has given the latest e-mail id as ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ and in response to the notice issued in the appeal against the assessment order for the assessment years 2017-18, the petitioner has replied and received the notice.

4. Ms. Latha K., learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that in the returns the petitioner had given the e-mail id ‘jayson@sajuandco.com’ and no communication has been sent on the said e-mail id to the petitioner. The e-mail id ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ is only given in the appeal filed against the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 and that appeal is still pending for consideration.

5. I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute the all these e-mail ids which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the statement have been given by the petitioner. The latest e-mail id given by the petitioner in the appeal filed against the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ on which the notices have been sent which is evident from paragraph 3 wrongly numbered as 2 in the statement. The petitioner had received the communications in respect of the appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 201 7-18 on the e-mail ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ and petitioner has also submitted response to the communication sent by the Department. Therefore, I am of the view that when the petitioner himself has given multiple e-mail ids and petitioner has responded to the notice issued on e-mail id ‘middleeast132@gmail.com’ on which the several communications for hearing of the appeal were issued, I find the stand of the petitioner not tenable and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned appellate orders in Exhibit P-2 series, the petitioner may file appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, if he so advised.