Remanded

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi v. the principal Commisisoner

Madras HC23 Sept 2024WP/13879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an exparte income tax assessment order passed against the petitioner due to negligence by his consultant. The matter was remanded to the Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying a cost.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for re-consideration subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- to Adyar Cancer Institute within four weeks.

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi Vs the principal Commisisoner — Income Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 23.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶7

& W.M.P.Nos.13537 & 13541 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Sri Rengasamy Sakthi, 1/17A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Kariyampalayam Mylampatti (PO), Coimbatore 641 062. BQAPS50034H

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 008.

¶12

2.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Coimbatore 641 008.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in Ref.No.ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2020-21/1030437833(1) dated 08.02.2021

¶16

1/7

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶19

and quash the impugned order as illegal, without jurisdiction, not following the principles of natural justice, perverse, not passed the order as per the Government Guidelines and direct the 1^st respondent to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and consider the records and law on hand.

¶20

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram

¶21

For Respondent : Dr.B.Ramaswamy, Senior Standing counsel

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶25

initially, the petitioner had failed to file their returns due to the demise of his father, who was looking after the accounts and finance. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 09.03.2018, calling for the return of income. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed his returns belatedly on 04.07.2018. However, the respondent had treated the said

¶26

2/7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶29

return of income as invalid and passed the assessment order dated 29.11.2019. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said assessment order and engaged a Consultant to represent his case before the respondent. However, the said consultant had neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing before the respondent. Under these circumstances, the exparte impugned order came to be passed by the 1^st respondent on 08.02.2021. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the said impugned order.

¶30

Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing

¶31

for the respondents had strongly opposed for the request made by the petitioner and would submit that though sufficient opportunities were provided by the respondents, the petitioner had failed to utilise the same. However, in the event of setting aside the impugned order, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the 1 st respondent, subject to the payment of cost by the petitioner.

¶32

3/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶36

Senior Standing counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶37

In the case on hand, the petitioner had failed to file his returns within the prescribed time limit due to the demise of his father. Hence, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 09.03.2018 calling for the return of income. Thereafter, though the petitioner filed his returns on 04.07.2018, the respondents had treated the same as invalid and passed the assessment order on 29.11.2019.

¶38

Aggrieved over the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner vide his Consultant/Auditor. However, the said Consultant/Auditor had neither appeared before the respondents nor informed the petitioner about the proceedings, due to which, the petitioner was unable to utilise the opportunity provided by the respondents. Now, the petitioner has pleaded this Court to grant an

¶39

4/7

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶42

opportunity to establish their case before the 1 st respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

¶43

7. Considering the submissions made and reasons assigned by the

¶44

petitioner for non-filing of returns, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order on terms. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

¶45

(i) The impugned order dated 08.02.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1 st respondent for re-consideration, subject to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Adyar, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶46

(ii) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,000/- as stated above, the 1 st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, after providing an sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

5/7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶50

8 . With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶51

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶52

23.09.2024

¶53

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa To

¶54

1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 008.

¶55

2.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Coimbatore 641 008.

¶56

6/7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.13879 of 2023

¶59

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶60

nsa

¶61

W.P.No.13879 of 2023 & W.M.P.Nos.13537 & 13541 of 2023

¶62

23.09.2024

¶63

7/7

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi v. the principal Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi v. the principal Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Inlott E Gaming Services P Ltd. Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Tmf Business Services Limited, Vs State Tax Officer, Group-I

Tmf Business Services Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer, Group I

Muthukumar sivakami Vs The Principal commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Peacock Fashions, Vs the Deputy Commissioenr of Customs

M/S.v.J.P.Shipping India Pvt. Limited Vs the Additional Commissioner of Customs