Case LawHigh Court › V.kuppusamy v. The Government Of India,...

V.kuppusamy v. The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax Department

High Court 18 Mar 2025 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · mdubench
Parties
V.kuppusamy v. The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax Department
Date of order
18 Mar 2025
Assessment year(s)
2017-18, 2017-2018
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In V.kuppusamy v. The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax Department, the High Court (2025) decided the matter.

Decision: Therefore, the impugned reopening proceedings are bad in law and the consequential assessment order should be quashed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025andW.M.P.(MD)Nos.5510 and 5511 of 2025 V.Kuppusamy -vs- ... Petitioner 1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Dindigul.... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents and quash the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent under Section 147 r/w. Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 in PAN DDMPKO892Ldated11.02.2025inDINITBA/AST/S/ 147/2024-25/1073139747(1) for the AY 2017-18 within the period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.02.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of assessment for the year 2017-2018 has been passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Further, the second respondent erred in reopening the assessment without having the books of accounts or documents or evidence that would substantiate the claim that the petitioner's expenditure chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The second respondent also erred in issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without ____________ Page 2 of 5 W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 conducting any enquiry regarding the escapement of income. Therefore, the impugned reopening proceedings are bad in law and the consequential assessment order should be quashed. 4. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner was served with notices on 18.07.2024 and 09.09.2024 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requesting explanations supported by documentary evidence. However, the petitioner has failed to furnish a detailed explanation in response to the questionnaire raised by the respondents. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead of invoking the said appeal remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, ____________ Page 3 of 5 W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 1961, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of four months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No 18.03.2025Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- 1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Dindigul. ____________ ____________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. smn2 W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 NCC : Yes / No 18.03.2025Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- 1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Dindigul. ____________ ____________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. smn2 W.P.(MD)No.7315 of 2025 18.03.2025
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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 — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan