Wp/15161/2024 Of Mahamaad Vasim v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Digitallysigned byVIJAYA PLocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 15161 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1. MAHAMAAD VASIM AGE: 28 YRS, S/O LATE MAHAMAD SHAFI, BANTENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BELUR, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ROOM NO. 356, C R BUILDING, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 002. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ROOM NO. 356, C R BUILDING, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI - 110 002 NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI - 110 002 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 STAGE, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 03.03.2023 PASSED IN ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050349555(1) PASSED BY THE R3 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the assessment order at Annexure-B dated 03.03.2023. 2.The contention of the petitioner is that during the relevant point of time, petitioner’s father was diagnosed with cancer as is evidenced at Annexure-A and accordingly, the petitioner was unable to participate in the proceedings and put forth his stand. It is further submitted that the perusal of the order at Annexure-B at Paragraph No.2 would indicate that the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 24.11.2022 for compliance by way of reply on or before 30.11.2022, which admittedly was communicated only on 29.11.2022. Accordingly, it is submitted that when the notice was served on 29.11.2022, insistence of making out reply by 30.11.2022 was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice as sufficient time ought to have been afforded. 3.Heard both sides. 4.It is noticed that the date of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act is 24.11.2022. The observation made at Paragraph No.2 of the impugned order would indicate that the notice was duly served on the assessee on 29.11.2022. If that were to be so, seeking for response by 30.11.2022 is clearly affording insufficient time and the order passed thereupon could clearly be construed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.Taking note of the plea of medical ailment of the petitioner’s father during the relevant period of time, it would be an appropriate case for setting aside the impugned proceedings and remitting the matter back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. 6.The memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner giving an undertaking that the petitioner would withdraw the appeal pending before the First Appellate Authority, is taken on record. 7.Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B is set aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. All contentions are kept open. Petitioner has to make out his reply to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner to also upload the order in portal. 8.Writ petition is disposed off accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE VP