MR MAQSOOD MAHMOOD ALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/27016/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01057656202412 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in the absence of the petitioner, who claimed to have been unable to participate due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, hospitalization, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Adopting a justice-oriented approach and to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and all subsequent recovery notices. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration afresh, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to file their reply, pleadings, and documents. The Court explicitly stated that all rival contentions were kept open and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Maqsood Mahmood Ali, is challenging an ex-parte order dated July 31, 2019, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 (R-4) for Assessment Year 2012-13. This order was passed after the petitioner's appeal against an order dated March 19, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Officer (R-1) under Section 143(3) was dismissed. Following the appellate order, recovery notices were issued by the Income Tax Officer (R-1) and the Tax Recovery Officer (R-3). The petitioner seeks to quash these orders and notices, citing inability to participate in proceedings due to hospitalization and the intervening Covid-19 pandemic, which he claims were bonafide and unavoidable circumstances. He requests one more opportunity to submit his reply and documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner's inability to participate in the proceedings. 2. Whether the subsequent recovery notices issued under Section 226(3) and by the Tax Recovery Officer are liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that his failure to participate in the proceedings before the respondents was due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances, including hospitalization and the Covid-19 pandemic. He contends that he has a good case on merits and seeks a fresh opportunity to submit his reply and documents. He relies on the principle of providing a chance for a just and equitable resolution. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents argue that despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner failed to send his reply or participate in the proceedings. They contend that the impugned order does not warrant interference and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 226(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.27016 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MR MAQSOOD MAHMOOD ALI S/O LATE MAHMOOD ALI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.1, ALI ESTATE VASUDEVAPURA, YELHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREERAM T. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 95.

2.

PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 95.

3.

TAX RECOVERY OFFICER - 1 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORMANGALA BANGALORE – 95.

4.

THE COMMISSIONER OF

INCOMET TAX (APPEALS) - 6 ROOM NO.753, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BANGAORE – 95. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER APPEAL DATED 31.07.2019 BEARING ITA NO.10240/CIT(A)-6/BENGALURU/2015-16 FOR AY 2012-13 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R-4 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. Quash the Order of Commissioner appeal dated 31.07.2019 bearing ITA No.10240/CIT(A)- 6/BENGALURU/2015-16 for AY 2012-13 (Annexure - A) passed by the 4th Respondent; ii. Quash the Notice issued under Section 226(3) to Corporation Bank by ITO WARD 6(3)(4) of the Act dated 27.02.2020 bearing no ITBA / RCV / S / 226 (3)_20 / 1025843619 (1) (Annexure B) issued by the 1st respondent; iii. Quash the Notice issued by the TRO dated 15.09.2023 of the act bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056120153(1) (Annexure – C) issued by the 3rd Respondent; iv. Quash the Notice issued by the TRO dated 25.09.2023 of the act bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056487173(1) (Annexure D) issued by 3rd Respondent; v. Quash the Notice issued under section 226(3) to HDFC by TRO1 of the act dated 11.03.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1062368099(1) (Annexure – E) issued by 3rd Respondent. vi. Quash the Notice issued under section 226(3) to the petitioner by TRO 1 of the act dated 22.07.2024 bearing No.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066880964(1) (Annexure F) issued by 3rd Respondent. vii. Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, petitioner herein filed an appeal before respondent No.4 / Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the same vide impugned ex-parte order dated 31.07.2019 pursuant to which, respondent Nos.1 and 3 issued the impugned notice for recovery and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4.

In this context, it is pointed out that inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit replies to the notices issued by the respondents and to participate in the proceedings was due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and due to hospitalization and intervening

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

Covid-19 pandemic and consequently, the petitioner was not in a position to issue reply or appear before the respondents and participate in the said proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case to urge on merits and if one more opportunity is granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would submit its reply along with the documents and participate in the proceedings and as such, it is necessary that the impugned orders / Notices at Annexures – A, B, C, D, E and F be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondents by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply to the notices and direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite sufficient opportunity being granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner did not send its reply nor participated in the proceedings and consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure – A will clearly indicate that the same was passed in the absence of the

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

petitioner, who did not avail the opportunity provided by the respondent, who has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specific assertions on the part of the petitioner that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and due to hospitalization and intervening Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was not in a position to send reply enclosing documents and contest the proceedings and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing one more opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.

7.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned notice / orders at Annexures – A, B, C, D, E and F dated 31.07.20219, 27.02.2020, 15.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 11.03.2024 and 22.07.2024, respectively, are hereby set aside. (ii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 for reconsideration afresh.

- 6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10529 WP No. 27016 of 2024

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its reply, pleadings, documents, etc., before respondent No.4, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (iv) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →