Sisi Welly Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040005572022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/182/2022

¶5

Sisi Welly D/o Nabam Tullon,

¶6

Resident of Village Sba, PO and PS Seppa, District East Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 Ors. Through the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance to the Govt. of India, North Block, Parliament House, New Delhi 110001 2:Income Tax Officer Age: 0 Occupation : JCIT/Addl. CIT National Faceless Assessmet Centre Delhi 3:The Income Tax Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Ward Itanagar D.K. Road Borah Complex North Lakhimpur Assam Pin 797001

¶9

4:The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Tezpur Assam Tezpur Dist. Sonitpur Assam

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

5:The Commissioner of Income Tax Age: 0 Occupation : Guwahati Aaykar Bhawan G.S. Road Christianbasti Guwahati 78100

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, D Ado,Geli Taye

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

04.09.2025

¶18

Heard Mr. R.S Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Chetia, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondents.

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the assessing officer under the National Faceless Assessment Centre whereby the assessments were completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that no response or reply was filed by the assessee in the notice issued. In terms of the impugned order, an amount of Rs. 3,94,69,944/- was raised as a Demand on the petitioner. The petitioner being an indigenous resident of the State of Arunachal Pradesh claims exemption from payment of Income Tax under Section 10(26) of the IT Act, 1961.

¶20

The writ petition was filed putting a challenge to this order on the ground

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

before this Court, it is submitted that the reply or response filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the respondent Department prior to the assessment order was already in the department’s records but the assessment order was filed without referring to the response filed by the writ petitioner.

¶23

In deference to the orders passed by the Court, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department has produced the copy of the order-sheet details before this Court.

¶24

From a perusal of the order sheet, it is found that on 29.03.2022, the response from the assessee namely the writ petitioner was already before the assessing officer and that apart copy of the work order has also been attached as it was not sent properly. Therefore, it appears that the response by the writ petitioner to the notice issued by the Income Tax Department prior to the assessment order was already before the department.

¶25

Under such circumstances, it is fairly submitted by the learned Sr Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department that because of oversight perhaps the response was not considered while passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022.

¶26

Accordingly, this court is of the view that the writ petition should be allowed.

¶27

The impugned order of assessment dated 30.03.2022 along with the demand raised is hereby set aside.

¶28

The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass appropriate order(s) by placing reliance on the response filed by the petitioner and received by the department.

¶29

Although a statutory appeal is available under the provisions of the Act

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

and ordinarily a writ Court is not required to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court is necessitated by the fact that impugned order of assessment is passed contrary to the provisions of law without referring to the response already filed by the assessee, therefore, the existence of statutory alternative remedy is not considered to be a bar in the facts of the present case, as the impugned order of assessment dated 30.03.2022 when passed by the Department without considering the reply of the writ petitioner.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Interim order(s) if any stands merged. Pending IAs if any are also disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sisi Welly v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisi Welly v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangkung Jonah Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Robin Padung Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Jomge Dulom Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Tani Jonkey Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Sova Hi-Tech Industries and 4 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Ratna Deep Das and 6 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.