Mangesh Kumar Mahar V. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue) and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and Assessing Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WPT/40/2024

AI Insights

Mangesh Kumar Mahar filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Income Tax Department, alleging that he was not given a proper opportunity to present his case due to his health issues and improper communication methods used by the department. The petitioner argued that he was hospitalized during the period he was supposed to respond to the notices and that the notices were sent via email contrary to the department's standard operating procedures. The respondents countered that multiple notices were sent to the petitioner, of which he only partially responded to one. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of an appeal as an adequate remedy and noting the petitioner's failure to formally request adjournments or respond to the notices adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814953 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Avesh Shekh vs. Union of India & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R K MISHRA; NIRAJ BAGHEL; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: RICHA SHUKLA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Bonafide reason; Demand notice; Efficacious Remedy; Email notice; Excess tax; Hospitalization; Opportunity of Hearing; Predetermined mind; Prejudiced mind; Humanitarian ground
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 246A; 144(b)

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. 40 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 Chhatisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue) No. 137, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 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 Petitioner : Ms. Richa Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Shri RK Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General and Shri Niraj Baghel, Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Ajay Choudhary, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 22.3.2024 1. The petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure-P/1) under Section under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner/assessee and the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order with predetermined and prejudiced mind making irrelevant observation and made an addition of Rs.22,63,468/- to the total income. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 15.9.2022. Subsequently, he received notice on 19.6.2023 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, initiating assessment process. He replied to the notice on 04.7.2023 with all necessary 2 documents. Thereafter, the respondents issued show-cause notice dated 20.10.2023 through e-mail instead of speed post or SMS, which is against their own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). It is further submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient prior to subject assessment and on this count, he was admitted twice in the hospital from 10.10.2023 to 18.10.2023 and from 28.12.203 to 13.01.2024. Due to hospitalization, he could not reply to the notice received to him through e-mail. It is further submitted that since 20.10.2023, there was no communication from respondent authority and abruptly on 13.02.24 impugned assessment order (Annexure- P/1) was passed and demand notice dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure- P/2) was issued to the petitioner to pay excess tax i.e. Rs.21,64,28,717/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without providing proper opportunity of hearing, impugned order has been passed, whereas, there is sufficient cause to the petitioner to show his bonafide reason for not giving reply to the noticed sent through e-mail, therefore, considering the ailment of the petitioner, on humanitarian ground, the respondent authority may be directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by quashing impugned orders (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) by allowing the instant petition. To substantiate the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avesh Shekh vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in WA No.143/2023 on 24.3.2023. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 submits that six notices were sent to the petitioner, to which, only 3 notice No.2 dated 19.6.23 was replied by him, but five notices were not replied, out of which, four notices were consecutive notices and when last notice dated 20.10.23 was not replied by the petitioner, the impugned assessment order (Annexure-P/1) was passed and demand notice (Annexure-P/2) was sent to the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per provision of Section 246A of the Income Tax 1961, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to impugned order (Annexure-P/1) and demand notice (Annexure-P/2), then the petitioner may file appeal before National Faceless Assessment Centre. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed as there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. It is further submitted that case law relied by the petitioner Avesh Shekh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case, as in that case, the applicant had made application to the authority for adjournment, but in the instant case, despite repeated notices to the petitioner, he has not moved any such application nor replied to the notices. Hence, aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court is not applicable in the instant case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Annexure-P/7 is a last notice sent by respondent authority to the petitioner which demonstrate that prior to last notice, five notices were sent to the petitioner, out of which, only second notice dated 19.6.23 was responded by the petitioner, that too, in part. If the petitioner is suffering from said ailment and was admitted in the hospital, then he may file application for adjournment informing the respondent authority about his ailment. But the petitioner did not do 4 so, rather, he remained silent to the consecutive notices. Further there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to raise his grievance under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing appeal, but the petitioner instead of filing appeal, has directly filed instant petition invoking extra jurisdiction of this Court, hence, I am not inclined to entertain instant petition. Further case law cited by learned counsel the petitioner is not found applicable in the instant case, as the petitioner had not made any application for adjournment to the assessing authority and he did not reply to the consecutive notices. 6. In view of the above, I do not feel inclined to entertain this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is rest with the petitioner to raise all his grievance by filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 7. It is made clear that if the appeal is filed, then the period spent before this Court will be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini "