Wp/22807/2021 Of Anuradha v. The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Anuradha, W/o.Saravanan. ...Petitioner The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1),Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 1,No.1, Chairman Subbrayar Street,West Shanmugapuram, Villupuram. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords relating to the impugned assessment order dated28.09.2021 made in DIN & Document No.ITBA/AST/M/147/2021-22/1035985593(1), quash the same. Captioned main writ petition has been filed assailing anassessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of 'TheIncome-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)' [hereinafter 'IT Act' for thesake of brevity]. 2. Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for writ petitioner,adverting to electronic mail cover communication dated28.09.2021 submits that impugned order is dated 28.09.2021,though column No.12 in the impugned order is blank. 3. Be that as it may, it is submitted that as part ofscrutiny assessment for 'assessment year 2012-2013' [hereinafter'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity], writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was requested to submit details vide notice dated20.09.2021 which this Court is informed is under Section 142(1)of IT Act. Writ petitioner sent a detailed reply vide e-proceedings response acknowledgment on 20.09.2021 itself.Adverting to this reply, learned counsel for writ petitionersubmits that writ petitioner comes from disadvantaged economicbackground and is enrolled in the Mahatma Gandhi National RuralEmployment Scheme. It is also submitted that the writpetitioner, with the intention of augmenting her income hadinter alia purchased some tractors in public auction and soldthe same to agriculturists/farmers and the monies were depositedin her bank account. To be noted, inter alia this has beenarticulated in writ petitioner's reply dated 20.09.2021. Moreimportantly, writ petitioner has filed affidavits whichaccording to the writ petitioner are affidavits from variousfarmers, who have purchased these tractors from writ petitioner.Notwithstanding all this, though the impugned order says thatthe reply of the writ petitioner-assessee has been perused,there is nothing to demonstrate that the affidavits orsupporting material have been considered. Adverting to paragraphNo.4 of the impugned order, learned counsel submits that it isnot just terse but it is laconic and learned counsel says thatreason is the soul of an assessment order but is absent inimpugned order. 4. This Court, without expressing any opinion about themanner in which reply has been considered, considering thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, which hasbeen alluded to supra, deems it appropriate as a one off matterto be sent back to the respondent for re-doing the assessment byconsidering support affidavit and other documents filed by writpetitioner qua deposits she has made. The reason as to why thesedocuments satisfactorily explain the deposits or not shall beset out in the assessment order when it is made de novo. 5. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel forIncome Tax accepts notice on behalf of the lone respondent andowing to short and narrow compass on which the captioned writpetition turns, with the consent of learned counsel on bothsides, the main writ petition was taken up. 5. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel forIncome Tax accepts notice on behalf of the lone respondent andowing to short and narrow compass on which the captioned writpetition turns, with the consent of learned counsel on bothsides, the main writ petition was taken up. 6. Learned Revenue counsel submitted that all questions maybe left open and it is not a case where reply of the assesseehas not been considered at all. The case on hand is a case ofnon-consideration of support materials and not giving any reasonas to why reply is unacceptable, leading to conclusion that thedeposits have not been satisfactorily explained. Respondent mayhave considered, as contended by learned Revenue counsel, butthe point remains that it could have been set out if noteloquently articulated in the impugned order as already delineated to supra. Considering the unique facts andcircumstances of the case as a one off matter, captioned writpetition is sent back to respondent. 7. Captioned writ petition is disposed of by making thefollowing orders:(a) Impugned order dated 28.09.2021 bearingreference DIN & Document No.ITBA/AST/S/91/2021-22/1035993032(1) is set aside solely for the purposeof facilitating the respondent to redo the assessmentby considering what according to writ petitionerinter-alia support affidavit;(b) The sequitur to the above limb is, thoughobvious, it is made clear that this Court has notexpressed any view or opinion on the merits of thematter;(c) Respondent shall take into account thesupporting material, more particularly material insupport of 20.09.2021 response of writ petitioner andmake the assessment order de novo giving reasons forthe conclusion;(d) The above de novo shall be commenced forthwithand concluded as expeditiously as business ofrespondent would permit and in any event within fourweeks from today i.e., on or before 22.11.2021; 8. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of with the abovedirectives. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petitionis also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as tocosts. Sd/- mk/nsaTo The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1),Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 1,No.1, Chairman Subbrayar Street,West Shanmugapuram, Villupuram. +1cc to M/s.D.R.Arunkumar, Advocate Sr.54551+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate Sr.54984 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/