Case Law Details
ITO Vs Abdul Majeed (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court addressed the necessity of a personal hearing prior to issuing orders under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The case, ITO Vs Abdul Majeed, involved an appeal by the Revenue against a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge.
Detailed Analysis: The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by Abdul Majeed, challenging orders (Exts.P6 and P7) passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Tirur, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, and the consequential notices (Exts.P8 and P9) proposing a re-assessment of income for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2019-20.
The petitioner’s contention was that the orders were passed without affording him a personal hearing, as mandated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The learned Single Judge concurred, ruling that failure to provide a personal hearing vitiates the orders and consequential notices, thereby directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing.
The appellant argued that personal hearing is not mandatory for an inquiry under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act. However, a recent judgment by the Division Bench (Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited) held that the assessee must be granted an opportunity of being heard, including the right of personal hearing.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
