Mangesh Kumar Mahar V. Union of India and Assessment Unit Income Tax Department and Assessing Officer National E-Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WA/181/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mangesh Kumar Mahar, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had dismissed his earlier petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. The appellant had been subjected to a scrutiny assessment by the Income Tax Department, resulting in a high-pitched demand notice. The appellant argued that due to his health issues, he was unable to respond to the notices served via email, which were supposed to be served in person as per the Standard Operating Procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessment order was passed without proper hearing and that the requirement to deposit 20% of the demand to avail the alternative remedy was burdensome given the high amount assessed compared to his declared income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695485 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHAUDHARI; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; High-pitched assessment; Scrutiny assessment; Show cause notice; Non-suited
• Section: 144B

Judgement Text

"WA No.181 of 2024 Mangesh Kumar Mahar Versus Union of India & others 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 181 of 2024 Mangesh Kumar Mahar S/o Shri Dhur Singh Mahar Aged About 38 Years R/o Prop. M/s Shri Ram Traders, Tulsi Nagar, Near Durga, Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Appellant Versus 1. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue), No. 137, North Block, New Delhi - 11001 2. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 3. Assessing Officer National E-Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondents : ShriAmit Chaudhari, Advocate along with Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, J 01/05/2024 Heard. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22/03/2024 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in WPT No.40 of 2024 wherein the appellant has been non-suited on the ground of alternative remedy against the order passed by Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 15/09/2022 the appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 declaring total income to Rs.7,89,000/-. Subsequently, his case was taken up in a scrutiny assessment and the notice was issued initially on WA No.181 of 2024 Mangesh Kumar Mahar Versus Union of India & others 2 01/06/2023 followed by 19/06/2023 and the appellant filed his reply on 04/07/2023. Thereafter, when reply was filed again notice was issued to the petitioner on 22/08/2023, 19/09/2023 & 04/10/2023. It is stated that the appellant was admitted to the hospital from 10/10/2023 to 18/10/2023 and show-cause notice was issued by the respondent on 20/10/2023 and the time was granted up till 30/10/2023. He would further submit that the appellant was again admitted to the hospital for heart ailment from 28/12/2023 to 13/01/2024. Thereafter, the order was passed on 13/02/2024 consequent thereto a demand notice of Rs.22095358/- was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the subsequent notices were served through the e-mail and as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) the face less assessment under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the notice was required to be served in person through post, however, the appellant since was ailing could not have accessed to his e-mail, therefore, almost without hearing the orders have been passed. He would further submit that if the alternative remedy is availed then he is required to pay the minimum 20% of the assessment value, which is a high pitched looking to his income which is shown as Rs.7,89,000/-, therefore, the alternative remedy would be of no avail. 4. He would further submit that the learned Single Bench has dismissed the case on the ground that the appellant must seek alternative remedy of filing appeal. WA No.181 of 2024 Mangesh Kumar Mahar Versus Union of India & others 3 5. Perusal of the writ petition would show that the documents have been placed on record about admission of the appellant in the hospital. The proximity of time of the ailment with the notice and demand and the eventual order and the demand made would show that for certain period of time the appellant was admitted to the hospital and eventually prima facie it shows that the assessment order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing in the touchstone of the fact that it was high pitched assessment and in order to avail the alternative remedy he was required to deposit minimum 20% of the demand. 6. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no prejudice would be caused if the appellant is heard and thereafter the assessment order may be passed. Accordingly, taking into the medical documents and the proximity of the date of admission/discharge of the appellant which was frequent within a short time the ailment relapsed, we deem it appropriate that the appellant shall be given a opportunity of hearing pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 20/10/2023. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Bench dated 22/03/2024 and the assessment order dated 13/02/2024 and direct the appellant to approach before the Assessing Officer and he shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 20th of June, 2024. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge Ashu "