SRI RANGAPRASAD vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
WP/9216/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01020789202204 August 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the respondents. The respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to submit his reply and documents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner failed to submit a reply and documents to the Income Tax Department due to illness and hospitalization. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed against him without providing an opportunity for a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was unable to respond due to health reasons, violates the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9216 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGAPRASAD THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.211, 50TH CROSS 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. JINITA CHATTERGEE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

DELHI – 110 001. 2. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER

THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE

DELHI -110 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2 ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or in the like nature of writ, quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 bearing DIN No.:ITBA/AST/ S/147/2021-22/1041530327(1) passed against the petitioner, vide Annexure – A; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or in nature of writ, directing the concerned competent respondent authority to provide an opportunity or personal hearing to the petitioner and until then restrain from initiating any kind of initiatives upon the petitioner in any manner, whatsoever, under the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 bearing DIN No.:ITBA / AST / S / 147 / 2021-22/ 1041530327(1), passed against the petitioner, vide Annexure – A; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or in nature of writ, directing the respondent authorities not to initiate any proceedings of whatsoever in nature, in respect of the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 vide Annexure – A, till disposal of this writ petition; (iv) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ of like nature, directing the respondent not to proceed with coercive steps by way of any

3 proceedings of whatsoever in nature, in respect of the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 vide Annexure – A, till disposal of this writ petition; and (v) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.

2.

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

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the various documents produced, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the letter dated 31.01.2022 issued by the respondents to the petitioner and further notice dated 07.02.2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2022, the petitioner could not appear before the respondents and submit his reply and documents, on account of the illness as can be seen from the medical prescription at Annexure – L dated

4 19.02.2022. It is submitted the he was subsequently adviced bed rest and due to health issues, petitioner could not submit his reply and produce documents and consequently, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the same being violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner did not file his reply and documents despite being granted sufficient opportunity, the respondent was left with no option but to proceed to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

5.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that he could not submit reply and documents to the notice issued by the respondents on account of health reasons and hospitalization as can be seen from the hospital prescription dated 19.02.2022, prior to passing the

5 impugned order, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his reply and produce documents, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 24.03.2022 vide Annexure – A passed by the respondent No.2, is hereby quashed. (ii) Matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of personal hearing and permitting the petitioner to produce documents along with reply. Sd/- JUDGE SV

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →