Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Petition on Income Tax Assessment Orders

Case Name:

WP(C) NO. 39862 OF 2023 - Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, The National Faceless Appellate Centre, and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Kerala)

Key Takeaways:

1. The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed under Section 250 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
2. The orders were passed by the second respondent for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
3. The petitioner, Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, sought a remand of the matter to the first appellate authority to reconsider the grounds taken against the assessment orders.
4. The court held that the first appellate authority’s failure to consider one or more grounds does not render the order bad in law.
5. The petitioner has the option to file an appeal against the orders and present all the grounds taken before the first appellate authority, including additional grounds.

Case Synopsis:

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, with the Honorable Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh presiding, delivered a judgment on December 1, 2023, in WP(C) No. 39862 of 2023. The case involved a writ petition filed by Vallapuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, represented by its Secretary, Sri. Ashrafali. P, challenging the orders passed by the second respondent under Section 250 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the first appellate authority had not considered all the grounds taken by the petitioner assessee against the assessment orders. The petitioner requested the court to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of the grounds.

The court observed that if the appellate authority has not considered one or more grounds taken by the assessee, it does not render the order passed by the first appellate authority bad in law. The petitioner has the option to file an appeal against the orders and present all the grounds taken before the first appellate authority, including additional grounds. However, the court clarified that it could not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the non-consideration of one or more grounds by the first appellate authority.

Based on these observations, the court found the writ petition to be wholly misconceived and dismissed it.

FAQ:

Q1: What were the orders challenged in the writ petition?

A1: The writ petition challenged the orders passed by the second respondent under Section 250 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Q2: What did the High Court decide?

A2: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the first appellate authority’s failure to consider one or more grounds does not render the order bad in law. The petitioner has the option to file an appeal and present all the grounds taken before the first appellate authority, including additional grounds.

1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the orders in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 passed by the second respondent under Section 250 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first appellate authority has not considered all the grounds taken by the petitioner assessee and therefore, this Court may remand back the matter to the first appellate authority to re-consider the grounds taken by the petitioner assessee against the assessment orders in Exts.P1 to P3.

2. If the appellate authority has not considered one or more grounds taken by the assessee, the order passed by the first appellate authority does not become bad in law. The petitioner has a remedy to file appeal against the orders and may take all the grounds taken before the first appellate authority as well as additional grounds. However, for non-consideration of one or more grounds by the first appellate authority, this Court could not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I find this writ petition wholly misconceive and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE