Orders passed mentioning old address of petitioner liable to be set aside: Kerala HC

Janardhanan Pillai Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)

Kerala High Court held that assessment and penalty order mentioning old address of the appellant are liable to be set aside as against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, petitioner directed to immediately update his current address and e-mail ID.

Facts- The petitioner has approached this Court challenging assessment and penalty proceedings under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that a persual of orders will indicate that the address of the petitioner were shown as “E-1/7 MUSCO STAFF COLONY, JAGADISH NAGAR PO KHOPOLI, RAIGAD 410216, Maharashtra, India”. It is submitted that the petitioner had been working in Raigad earlier and had shifted his residence to Kottarakkara nearly twenty years ago.

Conclusion- Held that this writ petition is allowed. Assessment and penalty orders are set aside on the short ground that they are issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The 2^nd respondent is directed to complete the assessment and the proceedings for imposition of penalty afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall immediately update his address and e-mail ID in the portal of the Income Tax Department, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the assessment and proceedings for imposition of penalty shall be completed after issuing notices at the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner does not update his address and e-mail ID as directed above, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6, P7 and P8 proceedings under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ext.P6 is an order of assessment for the year 2013-14. Exts.P7 and P8 are orders imposing penalty on the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that a persual of Ext.P6, P7 and P8 orders will indicate that the address of the petitioner were shown as “E-1/7 MUSCO STAFF COLONY, JAGADISH NAGAR PO KHOPOLI, RAIGAD 410216, Maharashtra, India”. It is submitted that the petitioner had been working in Raigad earlier and had shifted his residence to Kottarakkara nearly twenty years ago.

2. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that since Ext.P6, P7 and P8 were issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, the notices would have been issued to the petitioner at his registered e­mail ID as given in the portal and the petitioner cannot complain that the orders are issued in violation of natural justice on account of the fact that the address mentioned in Ext.P6, P7 and P8 is the address of the petitioner at Raigad, Maharashtra.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. A reading of Ext.P6, P7 and P8 orders do not indicate that the notice was issued to the petitioner at his registered e-mail ID. The address of the petitioner shown in Ext.P6, P7 and P8 is the address of the petitioner at Raigad, Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, he had shifted to Kottarakkara nearly 20 years ago and all subsequent Income Tax returns etc were filed from the new address of the petitioner at Kottarakkara. Therefore, I find some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6, P7 and P8 orders were issued without notice to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6, P7 and P8 orders are set aside on the short ground that they are issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The 2^nd respondent is directed to complete the assessment and the proceedings for imposition of penalty afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall immediately update his address and e-mail ID in the portal of the Income Tax Department, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the assessment and proceedings for imposition of penalty shall be completed after issuing notices at the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner does not update his address and e-mail ID as directed above, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.