MR. PAUL JOSEPH MANJOORAN, vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the assessment order indicated that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce relevant documents and information. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted an opportunity for a hearing and had appeared with his Chartered Accountant and made submissions. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice or any jurisdictional error in the assessment order. Consequently, the Court decided not to interfere with the assessment order, especially since an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the statute. The writ petition was dismissed, with a direction that the time spent prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded for calculating the limitation period if the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal. No issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mr. Paul Joseph Manjooran, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated January 31, 2024, passed by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner had not filed a return of income for the said year. The case was re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a notice under Section 148 issued on April 29, 2022. Despite receiving several notices under Section 142(1), the petitioner did not file a return. The petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority with his Chartered Accountant, was heard, and then the impugned assessment order was passed. The petitioner contended he was not afforded adequate opportunity and violated principles of natural justice due to acute renal failure, preventing him from collecting information.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Assessing Authority violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner adequate opportunity to present his case, particularly considering his medical condition (acute renal failure) which hindered his ability to collect relevant information? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 144B and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was not given a sufficient opportunity to present his case and that his medical condition prevented him from gathering necessary documents, leading to a violation of natural justice. He sought to have the order set aside and the matter remanded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner was provided with ample opportunities, as noted in the assessment order. They argued that the petitioner failed to respond to show cause notices and furnish information. The revenue asserted that a personal hearing was granted, and the assessment order was passed after hearing the petitioner. They further submitted that the order was neither without jurisdiction nor in violation of natural justice, and therefore, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy of appeal exists.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
Heard Ms Latha K learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jose Joseph learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the assessment order dated 31.01.2024 passed under Section 147, read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.1 The petitioner did not file the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The case of the petitioner was re-opened under Section 147 of the IT Act and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.04.2022 after obtaining necessary approval of the competent authority under the provisions of the IT Act.
2 In response to the notice issued under Section 148, -3-
the petitioner chose not to file any return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner was issued several notices under Section 142(1), the details of which have been extracted in the assessment order itself. The petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority along with his Chartered Accountant. The petitioner was heard, and thereafter, the assessment order was passed, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Authority, and, therefore, there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice. She also submits that the petitioner is suffering from acute renal failure and, hence, the petitioner could not collect the relevant information to be submitted before the Assessing Authority, and thus, there has been a failure on the part of the -4-
Assessing Authority to observe the principles of nature justice. Considering the said ground, the writ petition may be allowed, the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh orders, taking into consideration the relevant documents and information in possession of the petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr Jose Joseph learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, submits that the petitioner was afforded enough opportunity, which is taken note of in the assessment order itself. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notices to furnish the relevant information, if any, in his position. He further submits that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing, the petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority along with his Chartered Accountant, and after hearing the petitioner, the assessment order was passed. The assessment order is neither -5-
without jurisdiction nor has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment order when there is a remedy of appeal provided under the Statute itself.
Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the records.
1 The assessment order would disclose that the petitioner was afforded enough opportunity to produce the relevant documents. Not only was the opportunity to produce the relevant documents and information, but the petitioner was also afforded the opportunity of hearing, and in fact, the petitioner had appeared along with his Chartered Accountant and made submissions.
2 When there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the order does not suffer from -6-
jurisdictional error, this Court would not interfere with the assessment order, particularly when there is a remedy of appeal provided under the Statute itself. In view thereof, I find no ground to interfere with the assessment order impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail any remedy available to him under the Statute itself. If the petitioner avails the remedy of appeal, the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition shall be excluded while calculating the limitation period. The writ petition stands dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE
jjj -7-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
