Partly allowed

Muthukumar sivakami v. The Principal commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC23 Sept 2024WP/4204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging income tax orders. It dismissed the petition against the revision order but set aside the ex-parte assessment order to grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity to present her case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.03.2022 was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. The writ petition in W.P.No.4204 of 2023 was dismissed.

Muthukumar sivakami Vs The Principal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 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.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023 & W.M.P.Nos.4238, 4241, 4242 & 4244 of 2023

¶7

Muthukumar Sivakami

¶8

... Petitioner in both petitions

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,

¶11

No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 008.

¶12

2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Income Tax Office, No.121, Adams Building, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602.

¶13

... Respondents in W.P.No.4204 of 2023

¶14

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

¶15

2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Income Tax Office, No.121, Adams Building, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602.

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶19

3.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Delhi.

¶20

... Respondents in W.P.No.4207 of 2023

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.4204 of 2023:

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in DIN & Order No:ITBA/REV/F/REV5/202021/1029802090(1) relating to the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in PAN: BAJPS2378P dated 15.01.2021 and quash the same.

¶23

Prayer in W.P.No.4207 of 2023:

¶24

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent in DIN & Order No.:ITBA/AST/S/147/202122/1042033993(1) relating to the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13 in PAN: BAJPS2378P dated 30.03.2022 and quash the same.

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶28

For Petitioner in both petitions : Mr.T.Vasudevan For Respondent in both petitions : Dr.B.Ramaswamy, Senior Standing counsel

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 15.01.2021 and 30.03.2022 passed by the respondents 1 and 3 respectively.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father had sold a property, which is an agricultural land, to a Real-Estate Agent, due to which, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in her bank accounts. With regard to the said deposit, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent, for which, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2018. Subsequently,

¶32

3/9

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶35

the petitioner had also filed her return of income on 29.11.2018. Thereafter, the proceedings were dropped by the 1^st respondent vide impugned order dated 15.01.2021, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.4204 of 2023.

¶36

Further, he would submit that after the passing of aforesaid order dated 15.01.2021, once again, the notices were sent by the 3^rd respondent, to the petitioner's consultant, calling for certain details. Since issuance of the said notices was not informed to the petitioner, she had failed to provide the details as sought by the 3^rd respondent. Under these circumstances, the impugned assessment order dated 30.03.2022 came to be passed by the 3^rd respondent, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.4207 of 2023.

¶37

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent

¶38

had sent all the notices to the E-mail ID of the Consultant of the petitioner. However, since the whereabouts of the said Consultant was not known, the petitioner was unaware of the issuance of said notices,

¶39

4/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶42

due to which, she had failed to file her reply. Under these circumstances, the impugned assessment order was passed by the 3^rd respondent without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, which is violation of principles of natural justices. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders to set aside both the impugned orders.

¶43

On the other hand, Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing counsel, for the respondent would submit that the notices were sent to the E-mail ID, which was provided by the petitioner. However, after the passing of assessment order, the petitioner had intentionally changed their E-mail ID in the GST Portal. Hence, he made strong objection for setting aside the impugned orders and requests this Court to dismiss the present petitions.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶45

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

¶46

5/9

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶49

In the present case, the issue is pertaining to the credit of sale

¶50

proceeds of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the petitioner's bank account. According to the petitioner, the property sold by her is an agricultural land and hence, she is entitled for exemption. However, the petitioner was unable to explain her case before the respondents, due to the confusions created by her Consultant. Under these circumstances, the exparte impugned order dated 30.03.2022 came to be passed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶51

Therefore, considering the genuine reasons assigned by the petitioner, for non-availment of opportunities provided by the respondents, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to present her case before the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2022, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.4207 of 2023. Accordingly, this Court passes the following

¶52

order:-

¶53

6/9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶56

(i) The impugned order dated 30.03.2022 alone is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3 rd respondent for fresh consideration

¶57

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶59

9. With the above directions, the writ petition, in W.P.No.4207 of

¶60

2023 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶61

7/9

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶64

10. As far as the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 is concerned,

¶65

since this Court does not find any merits in the petition in W.P.No.4204 of 2023, this Court is inclined to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the writ petition No.4204 of 2023 is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶66

23.09.2024

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Income Tax Office, No.121, Adams Building, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602.

¶70

3.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Delhi.

¶71

8/9

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023

¶74

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶75

nsa

¶76

W.P.Nos.4204 & 4207 of 2023 & W.M.P.Nos.4238, 4241, 4242 & 4244 of 2023

¶77

23.09.2024

¶78

9/9

¶79

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

Muthukumar sivakami v. The Principal commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar sivakami v. The Principal commissioner of Income Tax

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

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi Vs the principal Commisisoner

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