Allowed

Prema.I v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Madras HC10 Jun 2024WP(MD)/11978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai High Court quashed an IT Act order under Section 148(A)(d) issued after a notice returned due to address issues was served at an alternate address. The Court remitted the case for a fresh order on merits within two months, directing the petitioner to reply to the original notice within 30 days, considering the assessee's small status and property sale.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 148(A)(d) quashed and case remitted to respondents to pass fresh orders on merits within two months; petitioner directed to reply to notice within 30 days.

Prema.I Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.10660 & 10662 of 2024

I.Prema

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, O/o. the PCIT, Madurai – 1, Central Revenue Building, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Income Tax Office, Nellai City Centre, Tiruchendur Road, Tahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 011. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent dated 28.02.2024 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1061689477(1) passed under Section 148A(d)

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶15

and the consequential notice under Section 148 dated 28.02.2024 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2023-24/1061694070(1) and quash the same.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For respondents : Mr.J.Parekh Kumar Senior Standing Counsel

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶20

The impugned order precedes an attempt to serve the notice under Section 148(A)(b) on the petitioner vide notice dated 04.01.2024. However, the said notice was returned with an endorsement “No such address” on 08.01.2024. The respondents, therefore, sent another notice on 23.02.2024 and served the same notice dated 04.01.2024 in the alternate address on the petitioner, which has now culminated in the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to respond on the notice dated 04.01.2024 issued under Section 148(A)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶25

That apart, it is submitted that the impugned order has been issued/passed without approval of the competent authority.

¶26

On the contrary, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has failed to file returns and therefore, notice was issued, to which, the petitioner sent a reply to the notice for the first time through E-mail on 01.05.2024 and has, thereafter, proceeded to file this Writ Petition on 21.05.2024.

¶27

It is submitted that there is no final determination. In any event, the petitioner can file the reply and can produce records before the Authority at the time of assessment.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶31

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Court is of the view that although the petitioner has neglected in responding the notice dated 04.01.2024, after it was served on the petitioner on 23.02.2024, the petitioner has to answer to the notice dated 04.01.2024 under Section 148(A)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶32

Considering the fact that the petitioner is a small assessee, who appears to have sold the property during 2019 and received the consideration and also deposited with the bank for a sum of Rs.57 lakhs, the Court is of the view that the impugned order can be quashed and the case be remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner giving a proper reply to the notice dated 04.01.2024 issued under Section 148(A)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the impugned order that preceded the show cause notice.

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶36

This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd

¶38

10.06.2024

¶39

5/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶42

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶43

apd

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.11978 of 2024

¶45

10.06.2024

¶46

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

¶47

6/6

Prema.I v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prema.I 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

Saravanakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner

Ruban Devadhas.N Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kumaravel Vs The District Collector

Jeyaprakash S Vs The Deputy General Manager

Karupanna Gounder Natarajan Suresh Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

M/S Susee Automotive Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)