C. Anitha v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals – 2 121 Mg Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM C. Anitha ...PetitionerVersus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals – 2 121 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 1 (1) Room No.305, 3[rd] Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhavan, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034....Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issuance of writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the firstrespondent contained in its impugned order dated 28.03.2017bearing ITA No.83/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 in PAN No. for theassessment year 2012-13, passed under Section 251 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, and to quash the same insofar as it enhances theassessment made of the Petitioner's income by the SecondRespondent, and to consequently remand the matter to the firstrespondent for a fresh order to be passed in accordance with lawon the notice seeking to enhance the assessment. Heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior PanelCounsel for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying forissuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orderpassed by the first respondent dated 28.03.2017 under Section251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, insofar as it enhances theassessment made by the petitioner's income by the secondrespondent and to consequently remand the matter to the firstrespondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law on thenotice seeking to enhance the assessment. Heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior PanelCounsel for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying forissuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orderpassed by the first respondent dated 28.03.2017 under Section251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, insofar as it enhances theassessment made by the petitioner's income by the secondrespondent and to consequently remand the matter to the firstrespondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law on thenotice seeking to enhance the assessment. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into thefactual matrix of the case as the impugned order has beenchallenged on the technical ground that the petitioner did nothave an opportunity to contest the proposal for enhancement ofassessment pursuant to notice dated 10.11.2016. The petitionerhad filed a regular appeal before the first respondentchallenging the assessment order passed by the second respondentdated 12.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The firstrespondent issued a notice under Section 251 (1)(a) of the Actproposing an enhancement of the income and directed thepetitioner to show-cause against the proposal on or before12.12.2016. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the firstrespondent dated 10.03.2017 stating that the appeal petitionfiled by the petitioner against the assessment order dated12.03.2015 along with the proposal of enhancement of assessmentwould be heard on 23.03.2016 at 02.30pm. The petitioner wouldstate that the date fixed for hearing having been mentioned as23.03.2016, the petitioner ignored the said notice as being anincorrect notice and expected a fresh notice would be issued bythe first respondent. However, the impugned order came to bepassed on 28.03.2017 by which the petitioner's appeal petitionagainst the assessment order dated 12.03.2015 has been allowedand simultaneously the proposal made by the first respondent forenhancement of assessment vide notice dated 10.11.2016 has beenconfirmed. It is clear that to the said extent, the impugnedorder suffers from violation of principles of natural justice asthe petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to put forththeir submissions. The Revenue seeks to explain by contendingthat the date mentioned as 23.03.2016 is a typographical errorand it should have been typed as 23.03.2017 and in fact thepersonal hearing was fixed on the said date and therefore, it issubmitted that this cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner.Though the explanation offered by the Revenue could beconsidered as reasonable, at the time of issuance of noticedated 10.03.2017, this should have been rectified by the firstrespondent or corrigendum could have been issued. However, thesame mistake has been carried over in the impugned order dated28.03.2017 as could be seen from Paragraph 4.5. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner would state that there was noresponse filed by their authorized representative to the notice dated 10.03.2017 and what has been stated in Paragraph 4.5 isfactually incorrect. Thus, taking note of the fact that thepetitioner should have an opportunity to put forth theirobjections with regard to the proposal for enhancement as theproposal in the notice impugned to that extent requires to beset aside, and the matter remanded to the first respondent forfresh consideration. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner would state that there was noresponse filed by their authorized representative to the notice dated 10.03.2017 and what has been stated in Paragraph 4.5 isfactually incorrect. Thus, taking note of the fact that thepetitioner should have an opportunity to put forth theirobjections with regard to the proposal for enhancement as theproposal in the notice impugned to that extent requires to beset aside, and the matter remanded to the first respondent forfresh consideration. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugnedorder dated 28.03.2017 is set aside insofar as it confirms theproposal for enhancement of assessment and the matter isremanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, whoshall issue a fresh notice of hearing giving reasonableopportunity to the petitioner, hear the petitioner in person andpass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarmrr/gpaTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals – 2 121 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.2. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 1 (1) Room No.305, 3[rd] Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhavan, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. + 1 cc to Mr. Arun Karthik, Advocate SR.71836+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate SR.71941W.P.No.13863 of 2017GJ-II(CO)EU(31/10/2017)