Kerala HC Deletes a Tax Order as an IT Officer Didn’t Fulfill Their Responsibility

If the income tax officer who hears the case does not render the decision, it would directed to a breach of the principles of natural justice, Kerala High Court ruled.

The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has marked that the doctrine ‘he who heard should decide or he who decides should hear’ applies to legal authorities. Section 148A of the Income Tax Act furnishes the chance to be heard by the taxpayer.

The applicant has filed this writ petition contesting an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A show cause notice under Clause (b) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act. has been issued by the Assessing Officer to the applicant, expressing that the income levied to tax for the assessment year 2017–18 has not undergone assessment and why a notice u/s 148 must not be issued.

The applicant has furnished a response. The applicant was furnished with a chance to hear. Thereafter the applicant was served with proceedings under Clause (d) of Section 148A, asking the applicant to file his return for the year.

As Provided for in Section 148 of the Act, a Notice was Issued to the Applicant.

The orders have been issued without jurisdiction as they were not passed via the person who heard them, as per the applicant. The limit of Rs 50 lakhs has not been carried to invoke the extended duration of limitation under section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

Section 148A furnishes that the Assessing Officer would, before issuing any notice u/s 148, conduct any inquiry, if needed, with the prior approval of authorities, concerning the information that indicates that the income levied to tax has escaped assessment.

The taxpayer has been furnished with a chance of hearing by serving on him a notice to show cause as to why a notice under section 148 must not get issued on the grounds of the data that recommends that the income levied to tax does not undergo assessment in his matter for the pertinent assessment year and the consequence of the inquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a).

On the grounds of the available material on record along with the response of the taxpayer whether or not the same is an appropriate matter to provide a notice u/s 148, via passing an order. The chance to be heard via the taxpayer is explicit in the section itself.

The applicant argued that the order was passed in breach of the principle ‘he who decides must hear’.

While disposing of the writ petition the court quashed the order which was not passed via the officer who heard the order of the applicant.

The court asked the assessing officer to pass a new order under the Show Case Notice.