DR. THOMAS ANTONY vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the decision-making process of the Assessing Officer was tainted by a violation of the elementary principles of natural justice and fairness. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient time to the petitioner to respond to the grounds for reopening and to formulate a reasonable defence. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were deemed illegal and ultra vires. The court ordered that the impugned Ext. P7 order in W.P.(C). No. 1900 of 2020 and the impugned Ext. P7 order as corrected by Ext. P9 in W.P.(C). No. 1920 of 2020 be set aside. The matters were remitted to the respondent Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to notify any additional aspects to the petitioners, allow them to submit written submissions, issue a notice of hearing, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and finalize the assessment proceedings without delay, preferably within 3 to 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The court expressly left undecided the merits of the impugned assessment orders.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Dr. Thomas Antony, filed returns under the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessments. The petitioner contends that the reasons for reopening were not furnished promptly. In W.P.(C) No. 1900/2020, the reasons were allegedly forwarded on 30.12.2019 at 2:37 PM, and the assessment was completed on the same day. In W.P.(C) No. 1920/2020, the reasons were allegedly forwarded on 30.12.2019 at 3:04 PM, and the assessment was also completed on the same day. The petitioner argues this process violates Supreme Court judgments and principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 1900/2020 and Ext. P7, as corrected by Ext. P9, in W.P.(C) No. 1920/2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment orders are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the insufficient time provided to the assessee to respond to the reasons for reopening the assessment? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: - The Assessing Officer did not furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment in a timely manner. - The reasons were provided very late on 30.12.2019, and the assessments were completed on the same day. - This lack of sufficient time to respond violates the Supreme Court's judgments and principles of natural justice and fairness. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the timing of furnishing reasons or the completion of assessment on the same day.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The factual aspects projected in writ petition (civil) No. 1900 of 2020 are as follows; “ The petitioner filed returns under the Income Tax Act and offered income. The Respondent sought to reopen the assessment, the reasons for re-opening which was sought, for was not furnished. Several reminders were given asking for reasons for reopening in terms of Judgment of the Supreme Court. However,
for the reasons best known, the same was forwarded to the petitioner on 30.12.2019 at 2.37 PM and the assessment also competed on the same day. Therefore, this writ petition as being violative of Judgment of the Supreme Court and of the various High Courts ”. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the afore captioned writ petition (civil) for the following prayers; “i) Call for the records leading to issuance of Ext.P7 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased togrant stay of recovery of tax due under Exhibit P7;
iii) To issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The factual aspects projected in the writ petition (civil) No. 1920 of 2020 are as follows; “ The petitioner filed returns under the Income Tax Act and offered income under Sec.44AD r/w Sec.44ADA. The respondent sought to reopen the assessment, the reasons for re-opening which was sought for was not furnished. Several reminders were given asking for reasons for reopening in terms of Judgment of the Supreme Court. However, for the reasons best known, the same was forwarded to the petitioner on 30.12.2019 at 3.04 PM and the assessment also completed on the same day. Therefore, this writ petition as being violative of Judgment of the Supreme Court and of the various High Courts.” It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the afore captioned writ petition (civil) with the following prayers; “i) Call for the records leading to issuance of Ext.P7 order along with Exhibit P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii) Pending hearing and that disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of recovery of tax due under Exhibit P7. iii) To issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Heard Sri. Anil D Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these two cases and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the sole respondent, Assessing Officer in these two cases.
The facts in these cases are broadly similar. The petitioner has got a case that the grounds for re-opening the assessment was let known to him by the respondent, Assessing Officer, only on 30.12.2019 at about 03.04 pm, in the case in W.P.(C) No. 1920 of 2020 and on the same day, at about 02.37 pm, in the case in W.P.(C) No. 1900 of 2020. Further, both the petitioner would point out that immediately thereafter, the respondent Assessing Officer has passed orders finalizing the assessment proceedings as per impugned Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 1900 of 2020 as well as Ext. P7, as corrected by Ext. P9 corrigendum in W.P.(C) No. 1920 of 2020. Without getting the merits of the aspects relating to the impugned assessment orders, it is only to be held that the above said decision making process of the respondent Assessing Officer in not granting sufficient time to the petitioner Assessee concerned in these two cases for responding to the grounds of appeal and then so as to enable them to formulate a reasonable defence of the matter, has been curtailed and therefore, the impugned decision making process in these cases are tainted by violation of the elementary principles of natural justice and fairness. Solely on account of the said ground of violation of principles of natural justice it is only to be ordered that the impugned assessment orders are illegal and ultra vires. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view the matter rquires serious reconsideration in the hands of the respondent Assessing Officer and the matter warrants a remit. For effectuating such a remit, it is ordered that the impugned Ext. P7 order in W.P.(C). No. 1900 of 2020 and impugned Ext. P7 order as corrected by impugned Ext. P9 corregndium proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 1920 of 2020 will stand set aside and the matters in relation to assessment in these two cases will stand remitted to the respondent Assessment Officer for consideration and decision fresh.
In case the respondent Assessing Officer is relying only on the above said proposed grounds of interference as intimated to the petitioners earlier, then no further such informati0n need be given. However, in case the respondent Assessing Officer is proposing to take into consideration any additional aspects, then such additional aspects may also be immediately notified to the respective petitioners in these two cases. In case any such additional grounds are so intimated to the petitioners by the respondent Assessing Officer, the respective petitioners concerned may give their written submission in the matter along with any supporting materials for aiding their contentions in that regard. This may be done by the petitioners without much delay. The respondent Officer will thereafter issue notice of hearing to the petitioners and will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respective petitioners concerned through their respective authorized representative/counsel, if any, and then will pass orders on the respective assessment proceedings, duly finalizing the same without much delay. The entire process in this regard may be duly completed and finalized by the respondent Assessing Officer without much delay preferably within a period of 3 to 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions (Civil) stand finally disposed of. (Sd/-) ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE LU
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
