Cit Nagar, 1[St] Cross Street,Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 v. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi β 110 003
High Court
19 Jan 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· hc_cis_mas
Parties
Cit Nagar, 1[St] Cross Street,Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 v. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi β 110 003
Date of order
19 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
2014-15, 2015-16
Outcome
Other
The order β as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Cit Nagar, 1[St] Cross Street,Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 v. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi β 110 003, the High Court (2024) decided the matter under Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 271 of the Income-tax Act.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
W.M.P. Nos.26296, 26299, 26302, 26304, 26307, 26312, 26313, 26314, 26316,26317 of 2021 and 2700, 2702, 2704, 2706, 2941, 2942, 2943, 2944 of 2022
M/s.Efficient Management Consultants
(Represented by its Partner)
28, CIT Nagar, 1[st] Cross Street,Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps
Vs.
1. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi β 110 003.
2. Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward β 1(2)
Income Tax Department, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-1,
Income Tax Department, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034...Respondents in both W.P.s 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034...Respondents in both W.P.s
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
PRAYER in W.P.No.24980 of 2021:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner / Assessee on the file of the First Respondent to quash the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 passed u/s 147/144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1035980448(1) and consequently direct the First Respondent to complete the fresh reassessment for the assessment year 2014-15 in directing to grant reasonable / sufficient opportunity of hearing.
PRAYER in W.P.No.24993 of 2021:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner / Assessee on the file of the First Respondent to quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed u/s 147/144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1036022741(1) and consequently direct the First Respondent to complete the fresh reassessment for the assessment year 2015-16 in directing to grant reasonable / sufficient opportunity of hearing.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Sriramanin both W.Ps.
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanakumarin both W.Ps. Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 28.09.2021
and 29.09.2021 passed under Section 147/144 read with Section 144B of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as βthe Actβ) for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
2.1. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is a partnership firm. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that reassessment notice was
issued under Section 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020 followed by a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 22.09.2020 by the 2[nd] Respondent. Reassessment under Section 147/144 read with Section 144 B of the Act, was completed on 28.09.2021 and 29.09.2021. It was also indicated that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act would be initiated separately.
2.2. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notices were issued during the Covid-19 lock down period and they were unable to respond to the notices on account of technical glitches, they were thus not afforded reasonable opportunity. The impugned order is thus made in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set-aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that several notices were issued to the petitioner during the period 2020-21. As there was no response from the petitioner, an ex-parte assessment order was issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
4. The challenge to the impugned orders in both the writ petitions is on
2.2. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notices were issued during the Covid-19 lock down period and they were unable to respond to the notices on account of technical glitches, they were thus not afforded reasonable opportunity. The impugned order is thus made in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set-aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that several notices were issued to the petitioner during the period 2020-21. As there was no response from the petitioner, an ex-parte assessment order was issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
4. The challenge to the impugned orders in both the writ petitions is on
the limited premise that the opportunity that was extended was not real but illusory in view of the fact that there were technical glitches. In support thereof the petitioner had furnished series of press releases and meetings with Infosys on glitches relating to e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. It was further submitted that the period in question relates to the lock down period due
to Covid pandemic. It is submitted that every time an attempt was made to check the web portal only some random messages were available, thereby the petitioners were disabled from responding, which is not seriously disputed.
5. Considering the above submission, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been granted a reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice in view of the technical glitches which is not disputed, thus the impugned order is made in violation of principles of natural justice and thus liable to be set-aside.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set-aside and the matters remanded back for continuing the proceedings from the stage of 142(1) notices.
7. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.01.2024
Speaking (or) Non Speaking OrderIndex:Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/No
Spp
To:
1. The Income Tax Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi,
E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi β 110 003.
2. Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward β 1(2)
Income Tax Department, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, 121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai-1,121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034.
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Spp
W.P. Nos.24980 and 24993 of 2021W.M.P. Nos.26296, 26299, 26302,26304, 26307, 26312, 26313, 26314,26316, 26317 of 2021 and 2700,2702, 2704, 2706, 2941, 2942,2943, 2944 of 2022
19.01.2024
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.