The Kerala High Court has held that the disputed question of fact in respect of proper notice under Income Tax Act cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. has observed that the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner/assessee, Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty was informed by the Income Tax Authorities regarding the tax arrears against her for the assessment year 2017-18 through a written communication referring to an assessment order dated 15.3.2022, which is alleged to have been served through e-mail.
The petitioner contended that on logging onto the web portal of the Income Tax Department, the petitioner came to know that the order of assessment was passed on 24.3.2022. It is asserted that the petitioner was not served with any communication regarding the draft assessment order. Therefore, complaining that the completion of assessment is against the provisions of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner approached the Court in the writ petition.
The department contended that as per the user e-filing profile data base of the petitioner, the primary mobile number registered by the petitioner was 8589074740 and the primary e-mail id registered was raseenakr@rediffmail.com and the secondary e-mail id wasreghunath-associates@hotmail.com. Producing the copy of the profile administration, it was further contended that notice under Section 148 was issued electronically and delivered to the registered e-mail id, reghunath-associates@hotmail.com, and an SMS alert was triggered by the system. Details taken from the e-filing web manager received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax were also produced. Still further, it is pointed out that copies of the notices issued through speed post and the postal track record were also produced to evidence the service of notice. Therefore, it was contended that as alleged, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner contendtened that the findings of the Single Judge are erroneous, inasmuch as the Single Judge failed to consider the question of violation of the principles of natural justice in the correct perspective. It is now settled law that if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, notwithstanding the availability of the alternate remedy, writ petition is maintainable.
The court declined to interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge, necessarily, the appellant/petitioner will have to resort to the alternate remedy of preferring an appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
Case No.: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
Date: 18/02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Christopher Abraham
