Income Tax Case

GAHC010221602022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7026/2022 TASHI DOMA D/O- SRI CHAMBA BHUTIA, R/O- TAKSA TSANG COMMERCIAL, MAIN BAZAR, BOMDILA, DIST. WEST KAMENG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN- 790001. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR Nafac-1 (1)(2), ROOM NO. 245-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN 2ND FLOOR G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, INCOME TAX BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29-11-2022 Heard Shri A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. C.Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for all therespondents. Considering the subject matter in question, this writ petition is disposed of at themotion stage. The facts, as projected in this petition are that on 30.03.2021 the petitioner hadfiled her Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2020-21 (Financial year 2019-20)declaring her annual income and had claimed a refund of Rs.2,87,43,392/-(RupeesTwo Crore Eighty Seven Lakh Fourty Three Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two).Thereafter, vide a notice dated 29.06.2021, the petitioner was selected for a completescrutiny and the aforesaid notice was served under Section 142(1) of the Income TaxAct. On 14.08.2021, the petitioner has claimed to have submitted her replywhereafter, on 28.10.2021, she received another notice from the Assessing Authority.The Communication continued and on 02.09.2022, the petitioner was served with ashow-cause notice asking her as to why the proposed variations should not be made.By the said notice, time was granted to the petitioner to file her reply within08.09.2022. All these communications are online. On 04.09.2022, the petitioner hadmade an application praying for adjournment of 15 days with effect from 08.09.2022so as to enable her to submit an effective statement. Thereafter there was nocommunication, informing rejection of such request and under those circumstances,the petitioner assumed that the request was accepted. On 16.09.2022, when thepetitioner had tried to upload her reply, she could detect that the e-response buttonwas deactivated, as a result of which she could not file her reply. Thereafter on19.09.2022 the order was passed by the Assessing Officer. Shri Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though theorder dated 19.09.2022 is the subject matter of challenge, his grievances would besubstantially redressed if a direction is issued to the Income Tax Authorities to acceptthe reply and thereafter take a call on the matter by them. Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department, however,submits that the antecedents of the petitioner may not call for any lenientconsideration. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a note on the various communications and activities of the petitioner vis a vis the Department todemonstrate that atleast, on five occasions, the assessee (petitioner) had delayed infiling his response and therefore, the order was rightly passed on 19.09.2022 underSection 143(3) of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that this Court being a Court ofEquitable Jurisdiction will not grant any relief to the petitioner, as it is because of thefault of the petitioner that had led to passing of the impugned order on 19.09.2022. Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department, however,submits that the antecedents of the petitioner may not call for any lenientconsideration. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a note on the various communications and activities of the petitioner vis a vis the Department todemonstrate that atleast, on five occasions, the assessee (petitioner) had delayed infiling his response and therefore, the order was rightly passed on 19.09.2022 underSection 143(3) of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that this Court being a Court ofEquitable Jurisdiction will not grant any relief to the petitioner, as it is because of thefault of the petitioner that had led to passing of the impugned order on 19.09.2022. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, taking intoconsideration the fact that since there was no express rejection of the applicationdated 04.09.2022 by which adjournment for 2 (two) weeks was sought for and alsothe fact that there is nothing on record to show that the application was not receivedby the Department, deems it fit to direct the authorities in the Income Tax Departmentto afford a chance to the petitioner. In the view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing therespondent authorities to facilitate the petitioner to submit her Return within 2[nd] ofDecember, 2022 subject to the condition of payment of an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to be deposited within 15 days to the Gauhati High CourtLegal Services Authority. It is needless to state that whatever action is required to be taken, includingactivation of the response button, the same would be taken by the Income TaxDepartment to comply with the above direction of this Court. It is needless to state that the assessment order dated 19.09.2022 is set asideand the assessment be redone after consideration of the reply of the petitioner. JUDGE