Case Law Details
Fathima Abu Vs PCIT (Kerala High Court)
In the case of Fathima Abu Vs PCIT, the Kerala High Court set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the validity of the order. The petitioner argued that although a reply had been submitted, it was not considered by the officer before issuing the order. The respondents contended that the reply was filed after the deadline, explaining its non-consideration. However, the Court held that the reply was filed before the order was passed and should have been considered by the officer. The Court directed that fresh orders be passed in accordance with Section 148A(d) after providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, without commenting on the merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by Ext.P13 order issued under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’). A challenge is raised to that order is on a short ground. It is submitted that though Ext.P11 reply was submitted together with Exts.P6 to P10 documents, the reply was not considered by the officer before issuing Ext.P13.
2. Keerthivas Giri, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would point out that admittedly the reply submitted by the petitioner was filed after the time allowed for filing reply and this may be the reason as to why the officer did not consider the reply while passing Ext.P13 order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Though the petitioner had not filed a reply within the time permitted by the officer, the fact remains that a reply was filed before the order was passed by the officer. It cannot be disputed that the reply of the petitioner was on record prior to passing of Ext.P13 order. Therefore the officer was bound to take note of the reply while passing Ext.P13 order.
Since it is seen from Ext.P13 order that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered, I am constrained to set aside Ext.P13 and consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act and direct that fresh orders be passed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 148 A (d) of the 1961 Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is open to the competent authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.
Author Bio
