SRI KUMARCHANDRA CHATURLAL MEHTA V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/12701/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Kumarchandra Chaturlal Mehta, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and demand notices issued by the Income Tax authorities. The petitioner, aged 89 and suffering from several ailments, including hospitalization, argued that he did not receive the notices due to his health and change of residence, which led to an ex-parte decision against him. The respondents contended that the notices were duly served at the address provided. The court, considering the petitioner's age and health, decided to quash the assessment order and notices, remitting the case for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695467 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: GAUTHAM BHARADWAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Ex-parte; Hospitalization; Natural Justice; Quash; Age; Ailments

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12701 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI KUMARCHANDRA CHATURLAL MEHTA SON OF LATE C.M. MEHTA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.265/17 SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM, TRIVENI ROAD, OR 4TH MAIN ROAD (WARD 36) GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, GOKULA POST BANGALORE-560054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GAUTHAM S.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2 (2)(2) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 12.12.2019 AND DATED 2 20.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAIRNG IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Assessment order dated 12.12.2019 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 and consequential Demand Notices dated 12.12.2019 vide Annexures - B and C and for other reliefs. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents - Revenue and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 89 years and was suffering from several ailments and was hospitalized, as can be seen from the medical records produced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Notices were issued by the 3 respondents to the address of the petitioner, where he was residing only up to 2017 and the petitioner had shifted to a different residence in the year 2017 and consequently, the notices which are impugned in this petition were not served upon him. It is submitted that since he did not receive the said notices, he could not contest the assessment proceedings which were disposed of ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the impugned assessment order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - Revenue submits that as can be seen from the order of the Assessing officer, the assessment notices were served at the address indicated in the said notices and it is now not open for the petitioner to contend that he did not receive the said notices. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. Though the petitioner has contended that the notices were not received by him prior to passing of the impugned assessment order, the said aspect need not be gone into, in view of the material on record, which clearly indicate that the petitioner is aged about 89 years and was suffering from several ailments including the suffer of brain hemorrhage, which required hospitalization as can be seen from the medical records. Under these circumstances, having regard to the highly advanced age and the ailments of the petitioner and his hospitalization, I am of the considered opinion that it is necessary to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings on merits by setting aside the impugned assessment order and remitting the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment order dated 12.12.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A 5 and consequential Demand Notices dated 12.12.2019 vide Annexures - B and C are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law duly notifying the petitioner and providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. SD/- JUDGE Srl. "