High Court Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961)

Case Name:

WP(C) No. 23174 of 2023 - Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

Key Takeaways:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and all further proceedings arising from it.
2. The petitioner argued that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
3. The Court observed that the impugned order did not reflect that the petitioner was being heard before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was passed.
4. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders.
5. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer/respondent on 01.12.2023 and make his submissions.

Case Synopsis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 23174 of 2023 on November 15, 2023, is as follows:

1. The petitioner, Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i)Quash the order (Exhibit P5) issued by the respondent, the Income Tax Officer, and all further proceedings arising from it. ii)Exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of Malayalam exhibits produced along with the writ petition, with an undertaking to produce the translation when required. iii)Grant any other incidental reliefs as deemed fit by the Court. iv)Allow the writ petition with costs to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was passed. The impugned order did not reflect that the petitioner was being heard before the order was passed for re-opening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Christopher Abraham, submitted that he did not have instructions regarding the opportunity of being heard given to the petitioner before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was passed.
4. Considering the submissions, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order (Exhibit P5), and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders. The respondent is directed to give notice of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.
5. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the Assessing Officer/respondent on December 1, 2023, and make his submissions.

This judgment signifies that the High Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was passed. As a result, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the Assessing Officer/respondent on December 1, 2023, to present his submissions.

FAQ:

Q1: What relief did the petitioner seek in the writ petition?

A1: The petitioner sought the following reliefs: (i) quashing of the order issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and all further proceedings arising from it, (ii) exemption from producing the English translation of Malayalam exhibits, (iii) other incidental reliefs as deemed fit by the Court, and (iv) costs to the petitioner.

Q2: What was the main argument made by the petitioner?

A2: The main argument made by the petitioner was that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was passed.

Q3: What did the Court decide in the writ petition?

A3: The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. It remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner.

Q4: What is the next step for the petitioner?

A4: The petitioner has been directed to appear before the Assessing Officer/respondent on 01.12.2023 and make his submissions.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and quash Exhibit P5 Order issued by the Respondent and all further proceedings arising therefrom; and

ii) to exempt the Petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this Writ Petition and the Petitioner further undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce English translation of Malayalam documents as an- when required; and

(iii) to grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; and

(iv) to allow this writ petition (civil) with costs to the Petitioner.”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) came to be passed, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner.

From the order impugned in Ext.P5, it is not reflected that the petitioner was being heard before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) came to be passed for re-opening the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year 2016-17.

3. Mr Christopher Abraham learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that he did not have instructions regarding the opportunity of being heard given to the petitioner before the order under Section 148A(d) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) came to be passed.

4. In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer/respondent on 01.12.2023 and make his submissions.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE