Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse v. Order

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse,S/o.Antony Alphonse ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Income Tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No.401, 2[nd] Floor, E-Ramp, Jawarharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi – 110 003.2. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(1), Income Tax Office, 66 & 67 Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012.... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, callingfor the records in DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031489202(1) dated 15.03.2021 on the file of the 1[st] Respondent relatingto the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.BaskarFor Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated15.03.2021 which has been digitally signed by the secondrespondent at about 16:22:33 hours on the said date. In otherwords, the impugned order has been passed at about 4.22 PM inthe evening on 15.03.2021. 2. The impugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by thesecond respondent preceded a Show Cause Notice dated04.03.2021. As per the said notice, the petitioner wasrequired to file a reply on or before the end of the day on15.03.2021 by 23.59 hours. In other words, the reply of thepetitioner was to be filed digitally latest by 11.59 PM in thenight. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitionerhad also sent a reply before the deadline for filing the replyhad expired on 15.03.2021 and therefore the impugned orderpassed by the second respondent was liable to be quashed.Opposing the prayer in the writ petition for quashing theimpugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the secondrespondent, learned senior standing counsel for Income TaxDepartment submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedyby way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner andtherefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the petitioner and the learned seniorstanding counsel for the respondents. 5. Since the impugned order has been passed before thetime prescribed for filing the reply, it is evident that theimpugned order has been passed with pre-set mind. In anyevent, the order has been passed without considering the replyreceived from the petitioner. Therefore, this Court isinclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner asthere is a manifest violation of business of justice whilepassing the impugned order. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order standsquashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondentto pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with lawafter considering the reply filed by the petitioner on15.03.2021. 7. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aboveobservations. No costs. Consequently, connected WritMiscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arbTo 1. The Income Tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No.401, 2[nd] Floor, E-Ramp, Jawarharlal Nehru Stadium,Delhi – 110 003.2. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(1), Income Tax Office, 66 & 67 Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012.+1cc to Mr.G.Baskar , Advocate SR.No. 21745+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No. 21761 W.P.No. 8379 of 2021and W.M.P.Nos. 8932 & 8934 of 2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/A.SK(18.05.2021)