Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Natarajan Manohar – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 17(2) – Respondent
W.P.No.33789 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Ashokapathy for M/s.Pass Associates
For the Respondents: Dr.B.Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel - R1 & R3, Mr.B.Ramanakumar Senior Standing Counsel - R2
Procedural fairness requires that all parties are given proper notice in legal proceedings, failing which an assessment order can be set aside.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition filed to quash an ex parte assessment order - Petitioner claimed no notice was received at the provided email - Respondents argued notice was sent to auditor’s email, who is abroad - Court finds genuine reason for the lack of communication and remands the case for reconsideration subject to payment of cost. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Assessment orders must ensure that parties are provided a fair opportunity for hearings - The requirement of proper communication is critical in assessing legal proceedings. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed ex parte for the assessment year 2018-19, claiming lack of notice sent to his personal email, whereas it was sent to his auditor's email.
Findings of Court:
Court observed that the petitioner’s reasons for not receiving notice were genuine and set aside the assessment order with terms, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the assessment order was valid due to lack of proper notice to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that assessment orders must be communicated effectively to ensure procedural fairness, ruling that the lack of notice justifies remanding the case.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to ex parte assessment order due to lack of notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. dispute over email communication for notice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court grants opportunity for reconsideration. (Para 7) |
| 4. emphasis on procedural fairness in assessments. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision to dispose of petition with directions. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same.
2. The sole ground raised in the present writ petition by the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte since no notice was received by the petitioner's email ID.
3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent would submit that originally the petitioner's auditor email ID was provided and now he is sitting in Dubai and since no alternative email ID was provided, all the communications have been sent to the said email ID. Therefore, the petitioner cannot blame the respondents that they have not sent proper communications to his email ID which was provided initially.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had provided only one email ID, i.e., his email ID “nmanohar1959@gmail.com”, except this, no other email ID was provided.
5. However, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent reiterated about the email ID, which is available on record with the respondents.
6. In the present case, there is no dispute that the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte. It is seen that the issue pertains to the provisions of opportunities prescribed and also pertains to the tax. The petitioner submitted that he has provided only one email ID and no communications have been received by him.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner provided only his auditor's email ID. Therefore, all the communications had been sent to his auditor's email ID, who is now sitting in Dubai. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to set aside the matter and to remand the matter for reconsideration.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not providing the email ID appears to be genuine. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-
(i) The impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 09.05.2024 is set aside subject to the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration.
(iii) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file additional reply, if any along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks.
(iv) Thereupon, the second respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 7 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
