The High Court quashed the income tax assessment order, as the petitioner wasn't granted fair opportunity to respond due to their representative’s medical surgery.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by a taxpayer aggrieved by the assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing that the order was issued without affording them a proper opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner’s Authorised Representative (AR) had been undergoing hospitalization for gallbladder removal, which led to delays in responding to multiple notices issued under Sections 142(1), 144, and 144B of the Act.

Despite this genuine reason being communicated to the Assessing Officer, the department proceeded to fix a personal hearing on 14.02.2025, which the petitioner could not attend due to the AR’s medical condition. The department nevertheless went ahead and passed the assessment order.

Arguments and Observations

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The AR’s medical emergency was clearly communicated.

• Time was requested to file replies and participate in the hearing.

• The impugned order was passed without considering these facts, which constituted a breach of natural justice.

Department’s Defense:

• All statutory notices were issued.

• No substantive reply was received from the petitioner.

• A personal hearing was provided, which the petitioner failed to attend.

Court’s Analysis & Decision

The Court noted that:

• The medical condition of the petitioner’s AR was genuine and documented.

• The Assessing Officer was duly informed of this situation.

• The department should have granted a reasonable extension for filing the reply and appearance.

Hence, the impugned order was passed in undue haste, violating the basic principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

Final Directions of the Court:

1. The order dated 01.03.2025 was quashed.

2. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

3. The petitioner is to file a reply within two weeks of the portal reopening.

4. The department must issue a 14-day notice for personal hearing and then pass an order after hearing the petitioner on merits.

Income Tax Case Law Sohanlal Jain Ramesh Versus The Assessment Unit

Citation-2025 TAXONATION 482 (MADRAS)

SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)

FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj