Wp/26215/2021 Of Raghavender Reddy Palle v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26215 OF 2021 Between: Raghavender Reddy Palle,, S/o Late P. Bucha Reddy Aged 60 years, Occ.Advocate, R/o. H. No. 7-105/1 , Madhurapuri, Road No. 4, Dilsukhnagar,H,derabad - 500060 ...PErroNER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), AayakarBhawan, 8th Floor, Basheer Bagh, L.B. Stadium Road, Hyderabad-500004 2. The Addl. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range [-1, ]Hyderabad3. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Sastry Bhavan,New Delhi RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the Assessmentorder in DIN and order No. ITBA/AST/S/153C12021- 2211035971118(1),dt.2810912021), without being any proper opportunity to the [petitioner passed ]thesaid order for the Assessment year 2019-20 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 19,265 & 3004 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the 1strespondent herein to dispose of the petitioner's case afresh by serving [proper ]noticefor the Assessment year 2019-20 on merits of the case and dispose of the same asexpeditiously as possible, lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the impugned Assessment order [passed ]by the Respondent No.1 in DINNo.lTBA/AST/S1153C12021-22/1035971118(1), dt.28lO912021 , [pending ]disposal ofthe WP, in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for Respondents: B NARASIMHA SARMA The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER \ .I EHN'BLERIUSTICt_J AL [tr][\.{\]ANI)-t'HE HON 'BLE DR.JUSTICE [C][I{ILLAK][tiR ][sti\,I][ AI,ATHA] w.P.NO.262l5 [0F ][2021] o RDRthc'ble stiiial llhr Heard Mr. [Dundu ][Manmohan, ][learned ][cottnsel ][for ][the petitiorrer]andMr.B.NarasimhaSarma,learnedcounselfortherespondents' 2. By filing [this ][petition ][under ][Article ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of]tndia, petitioner [seeks ][quashing ][of ][assessment ][order ][dated 28 ][09 ][202 ][I]passed by Assistant [comtnissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax, ][Central ][Circle ][I ( ] [)']llyderabad [i.e.. the respondent ][No.l ][under ][Section ][153 ] [oithe ][lncome]TaxAct,lg6l(brie11y'theAct,hereinafter)fortheassesslnentyear2rJ I 9-20 3. We find from [the ][docurrents ][on ][record ][that petitioner ][is ][an]assessee under [the ][Act. ][For the ][assessment ][year ][2019-20, ][he had ][filed]his return of [incotne ][on ][31.08.2019 ][returning ][a ][total ][income ][ol]Rs.16,09,060.00 [(Rupees ][sixteen lakhs, nitre thousand, ][and ][sixtl'only)'] IFollorving a search [and ][seizure ][operation carried ][ottt ][undel']section 32 of [the ][Act ][in ][the ][case ][of ][one ][Sri ][Sunil ][Kurnar ][Alruja, ][certain]incrrminati [g ][rnaterials were ][found ][relating ][to ][ptrrcltase ][ol'larld ][b1 ][the]petltloner 5Assessing officer i.e., the respondent No.1 noted trrat noticesissued to the petitioner were not responded to. Accordingly, heproceeded ex parte, and passed the impugned order of assessmentdetermining the total income of the petitioner at Rs.1,g4,61.960.00(rupees one crore, eighty tbur lakhs, sixty one tho,sand. nine hundredand sixty only), where-after, payrnent notices rrave been issued andpenalty proceedings initratedand sixty only), where-after, payrnent notices rrave been issued andpenalty proceedings initrated IFollorving a search [and ][seizure ][operation carried ][ottt ][undel']section 32 of [the ][Act ][in ][the ][case ][of ][one ][Sri ][Sunil ][Kurnar ][Alruja, ][certain]incrrminati [g ][rnaterials were ][found ][relating ][to ][ptrrcltase ][ol'larld ][b1 ][the]petltloner 5Assessing officer i.e., the respondent No.1 noted trrat noticesissued to the petitioner were not responded to. Accordingly, heproceeded ex parte, and passed the impugned order of assessmentdetermining the total income of the petitioner at Rs.1,g4,61.960.00(rupees one crore, eighty tbur lakhs, sixty one tho,sand. nine hundredand sixty only), where-after, payrnent notices rrave been issued andpenalty proceedings initratedand sixty only), where-after, payrnent notices rrave been issued andpenalty proceedings initrated (rAccording to the learned coutsel fbr the petitioner no noticewas served upon the petitioner. petitioner had changed his e_rnailaddress to ' ,and this was intimated to theIncorne Tax Departmentol)15.08.2019. The notices underIncorne Tax Departmentol)15.08.2019. The notices underSections 142(l) and 143(3), were in all probability sent to the earliere-mail address of the petitioner, which had become defunct, and,therefore, the petitioner did not receive any ofthe notices.therefore, the petitioner did not receive any ofthe notices. L,earned counsel for the respondents referring to the avermentsrnade in the counter affidavit, rnore particularly to paragraplr No 4thereof" subrnits that all notices were issued by respondent No. l to the e-rnail address of the petitioner, which was available on the ITBA portal2f [the Income Tax ][Department i.e., . ,]thereof" subrnits that all notices were issued by respondent No. l to the e-rnail address of the petitioner, which was available on the ITBA portal2f [the Income Tax ][Department i.e., . ,] 8. We have carefully [perused ][the ][irnpugned ][order ][of ][assesstnent]dated 28.09.202 1. Ordinarily, [the ][writ ][cottrt ][would ][l.rave ][relegated ][the]assessee making a chalienge to the [order ][of ][assessment ][to ][the ][forurn ][of]appeal before the Commissioner of [Income Tax ][(Appeals) ][However,]tliis is a case where [petitioner has ][complained ][of ][violation ][of ][the]principles of natural [j ]ustice, as he was not ser-ved with [the ][requislte]statutory notices. leading to [passing ]ol the assessmeut [ordel] 9. We rray ref'er to the fbltorving paragraphs ol the assessmentoider "The assessee did not respondent to the above notice. Hence,another notice u/s 142(l) has been issued to the assessee on [17-09-2021]However, subsequently it is found that at point vii(a) & vii(b) ofthe [notice]u/s 142(1) dated 10-08-2021, the name was inadvertently mentioned [as]Smt.P.Sharada instead of Sri P.Raghavendar Reddy. Hence. aCorrigendum vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 27 -09-2021m has been issued.However, the assessee did not respond to any ofthe notices u/s142(l) andhas not fumished any details in response to the above questionnaire. As there was no response from the assessee the assessment iscompleted as [per ]the material available on record and basing on the seizeddocument." 10 ThoLrgtr respondent No l has stated that he had sent thc noticerunder Section I42(l) of the Act, firstly on 30.08.202 I, and thereafter on17 .09.20)1 wrth corrigendurn on 27.09.202 l. nothing lras beerr statedregarding service of notice. All that rs stated is tlrat the assessee did notrespond to an1, of the notices. If this is read in col3unctiol rvit; theaverments made in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the ") r'0sporldcrlts. rt Lrecornes e'ide,t that the notices *,ere sent b1, therespondent to the earlier e-urair address of the petitroner, wrrich has nowbecorne defunct.becorne defunct. As there was no response from the assessee the assessment iscompleted as [per ]the material available on record and basing on the seizeddocument." 10 ThoLrgtr respondent No l has stated that he had sent thc noticerunder Section I42(l) of the Act, firstly on 30.08.202 I, and thereafter on17 .09.20)1 wrth corrigendurn on 27.09.202 l. nothing lras beerr statedregarding service of notice. All that rs stated is tlrat the assessee did notrespond to an1, of the notices. If this is read in col3unctiol rvit; theaverments made in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the ") r'0sporldcrlts. rt Lrecornes e'ide,t that the notices *,ere sent b1, therespondent to the earlier e-urair address of the petitroner, wrrich has nowbecorne defunct.becorne defunct. I l. As stated earlier, petitioner has now a new e_mail accountbeing ' ,, earlier, petitioner has now a new e_mail accountbeing ' ,, which was duly informed to thehcorne Tax Depar.trnent on 15.0g 2019.hcorne Tax Depar.trnent on 15.0g 2019. ll l'hat being the position, we are of tlre view that petrtioner \.vasnot hcard be.lbrc passitrg the irnpugnecl ordet. ol assessulent.There isthus violation ofthe principles of natural justice 13ln such c ircurnstatrces, we of the ,,.rerv that the irnpugnedassesslnent order sriould be set aside with a direction to respondent No. rto pass fiesh assessrnent order for the assessment year 2019-20 into respondent No. rto pass fiesh assessrnent order for the assessment year 2019-20 inaccordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner.t4. Ordered accordinglypetitioner.t4. Ordered accordingly t,).writ petition is accordingry ailowed to the extent indicated l 16. lnterlocutory applications pending, if any, shalt stand closed No order as to costs. SDIK.SAILESHIASSISTANT REGISTRARrJ!t''/.'1SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY' To, 1. The Assistant Commissionerof lncome-Tax, [Central Circle ][1(1), ][Aayakar]Bhawan, Bth Floor, Basheer Bagh, L.B. Stadium Road, [Hyderabad-500004]2. The Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range [-1, ][Hyderabad]3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union [of lndia, Sastry Bhavan, New ][Delhi]4. One CC to Sri Dundu Manmohan Advocate 5. One CC to Sri B Narasimha Sarma Advocate 6. Two CD Copies7. One Spare Copy{ p I/BC DATED: 2211112021 ORDER WP.No.26215 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,