SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Udayar Thevar Chellappa – Appellant
Versus
Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8346 and 8348 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Nikhilesh for Mr.K.Kaleeswaran
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Pareshkumar Senior Standing Counsel

Technical glitches in e-hearing warrant remittal for fresh personal hearing opportunity under Income-Tax Act.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under S.147 r.w.s. S.144 r.w.s. S.144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-22, alleging denial of personal hearing due to technical glitches in video conferencing links on 04.02.2026 and 05.02.2026. The court found that initial glitch was admitted by respondents, and petitioner’s failure to contact toll-free number was minor, warranting fresh opportunity. Issues framed included whether opportunity of hearing was adequately provided despite glitches. Ratio: Technical difficulties in e-hearing, if acknowledged, require remittal for fresh hearing to ensure natural justice. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside and remitted for fresh assessment post-hearing.

Table of Content
1. challenges to assessment order due to hearing glitches. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents defend proper notice provision. (Para 3)
3. court considers glitches warrant fresh opportunity. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

25.02.2026, which is an order of assessment passed for the Assessment year

2021-2022.

2. The primary ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner assails the assessment order is that when the intimation for scheduling of personal hearing was sent to the petitioner by an autogenerated e-mail, on 04.02.2026, there was a technical glitch and therefore, the respondents themselves postponed the hearing to 05.02.2026. Another communication was purportedly sent, which is also an autogenerated e-mail. But the petitioner was unable to log in to the link provided therein. Therefore, the petitioner sent a reply immediately thereof. Inspite thereof, no opportunity was given to the petitioner and the authorities proceeded to pass the order.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Senior Standing Counsel, upon instructions by the respondents, would submit that it is true that on 04.02.2026, there was a technical glitch, that is why the hearing was postponed to 05.02.2026. On 05.02.2026, on the part of the authorities, proper e-mail has been sent, indicating the link and the password for the petitioner to join through video conferencing. If the petitioner has had any glitches, the petitioner ought to have contacted the toll-free number provided for assistance and the e-mail itself categorically mentions that it is a system-generated mail and the party should not reply to the said e-mail address. Without even considering the same properly, the petitioner had only sent the reply e-mail to the said system-generated mail and therefore, it cannot be looked into.

Therefore, the petitioner himself has failed to avail the opportunity.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

5. Upon hearing both sides, it can be seen that on the first day of hearing, that is 04.02.2026, there was some technical glitch. On the next day 05.02.2026, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that again there was some technical glitch and he was unable to join. The screenshot in support thereof is also produced. The only error that is committed by the petitioner is sending an e-mail expressing his inability to join and not contacting the toll-free number mentioned therein. Considering the said overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that it is admitted by the respondents about the technical glitch with reference to the previous day, I am of the view that the circumstances warrant grant of an opportunity to the petitioner.

6. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

(i) The impugned order of assessment, dated 25.02.2026, shall stand set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the file of the respondents for fresh consideration;

(ii) The petitioner shall be provided fresh link for personal hearing and after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, orders afresh can be passed in the manner known to law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top