Case Law Details
Salim Kammalayil Pareeth Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Income Tax Act through a writ petition, contending that it was based on a third-party statement that had been retracted. The petitioner also argued that although an opportunity for cross-examination was granted, it could not be effectively utilized.
The Court observed that the issue regarding the acceptability of the third-party statement is a question of fact. It further noted that an opportunity for cross-examination had indeed been provided upon the petitioner’s request, and summons were issued. However, the witness informed that he was not available for cross-examination.
In these circumstances, the Court held that it cannot be considered a case where no opportunity was granted. Since the matter involved questions of fact, the Court found no scope to entertain the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue statutory remedies through the appropriate appellate process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment. According to the petitioner, the assessment was completed based on the statement of a third party, and he had already retracted from the statement. It is also contended that, even though the petitioner was granted an opportunity of cross-examination of the said person, the same could not be properly utilized by the petitioner. It was in these circumstances the challenge is raised by the petitioner by way of writ petition instead of invoking the statutory remedy of appeal.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel of the respondents 1 to 3, I find that, as far as the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the acceptability of the statement of the person referred to above is concerned, the same is a question of fact. With regard to the opportunity for cross-examination, it is discernible from the records that, based on the request made by the petitioner an opportunity was indeed extended to him and as part of the same summons was also issued. However, the witness intimated that, as he was not in station he cannot come for cross-examination.
3. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, it cannot treated as a case where no opportunity was extended to the petitioner. Moreover, the issue to be decided is a question of fact, and therefore, I do not find any scope for entertaining this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies.
Author Bio
