null V. Income Tax Department

WP/11802/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner contested the order dated 31.03.2022, which was based on a show-cause notice issued earlier that day. The petitioner argued that the order was passed before the deadline for submitting objections to the notice, and their objections were not considered in the final order. The court found procedural improprieties in the handling of the petitioner's objections and the timing of the order, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and mandate a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799458 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAMANA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2017-18; Denovo assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(3); 156; 144(b)

Judgement Text

" THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU WRIT PETITION NO.11802 of 2022 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Heard Sri P.Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.M.Kiranmayee, learned standing counsel for respondnet No.2, and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “……to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 31.03.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential computation statement, the notice of demand under Section 156 and penalty show cause notices dated 31.3.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of the procedure laid down under Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct denovo assessment to be done after granting fair opportunity of submitting the reply and a personal hearing and pass....” 3. A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition show that the show-cause notice was issued 30 03 2022 i t l t d S ti 143 (3) d 2 making an addition of Rs.2.38 crores. The notice was served on the petitioner at 09.16 p.m. as per email dated 30.03.2022. Respondent No.1 demanded the petitioner to submit his response online by 23.59 hours of 31.03.2022 either accepting the variation or objecting to the same. Thereafter, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed on 31.03.2022 at 18.26 hours i.e. 06.26 p.m. The same is under challenge on the ground that the order came to be passed even before expiry of time granted for filing objections and though the objections have been filed, the same are not reflected in the impugned order. 4. Ms. M.Kiranmayee, learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department, opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the order came to be passed before expiry of time granted for filing objections to the show-cause notice and the objections filed were not taken into consideration. The notice was sent by e-mail at 09.16 p.m. on 30.03.2020, demanding submission of reply by 23.59 hours of 31.03.2020, but order impugned came to be passed by 06.20 p.m. No explanation is forthcoming as to why an order came to be passed even before the expiry period. Futher, the explanation offerred was never taken into consideration. 6. While submitting explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner herein sought some more time to produce additional evidence, but, as stated earlier, there was no response from the authorities. 7. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is allowed 3 fresh disposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, by taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner, and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce fresh evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU 22.08.2022 Ksp "