IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.03.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.No.48754 and 48755 of 2025 Shri K.Kaliaperumal ... Petitioner Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Salem. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in PAN No.AKGPK8804Q dated 06.12.2018 on the file of the Respondent for the AY

2011-12 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar R For Respondent : Mrs.M.Sheela Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.H.Siddharth Junior Standing Counsel

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Assessment Order dated 06.12.2018 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge to the order primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to the following notices:-

4. It is submitted that all the notices were addressed to the Petitioner’s former Income Tax Consultant/Auditor jayam1audit@gmail.com.

5. Specifically, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner’s email ID was updated long before and the primary address of communication of all notices and orders was kkp_co@yahoo.co.in>.

6. It is submitted that despite the same, notices were sent to the Petitioner’s auditor, in the aforesaid old email ID, which were never communicated to the Petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the Petitioner is a non-filer of the Income Tax Return and that Section 148 Notice was directly sent to the Petitioner at Salem and registered address of the Petitioner which was also duly acknowledged.

8. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand would also drew comparison with the signatures in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition and the signatures in the AD Card which was produced by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

9. A perusal of the signatures indicates that there are variance between the two signatures. It can be only assumed that there was service of notice in the address which was given at the time of obtaining PAN. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner was a non-filer of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 which has now culminated in the impugned order.

10. To balance the interest of the Petitioner and the Respondent, I am inclined to remit the case back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits by taking note of the fact that part of the tax confirmed vide impugned order has been adjusted from the refund due for the Assessment Year 2025- 2026 for a sum of Rs.62,540/-. The Petitioner is directed to deposit token amount of Rs.25,000/- to establish his bonafide and file a proper reply to Section 148 Notice that preceded the impugned order by treating the impugned order as an addendum to the same.

11. The Petitioner is also directed to give proper details of the communication to the Respondent and shall voluntarily file a reply within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law.

12. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Petitioner shall be heard.

13. This Writ Petition stands disposed of by way of remand. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitio