M. RAJALAKSHMI v. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT OF INCOMETAX/INCOMETAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACCLESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, GOVERNMENT OF I

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 29-07-2022, for the assessment year 2013-14, passed by the 2nd respondent under the Income-tax Act, 1961, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.No.28673 of 2022 dated 07-09-2022 in the interests of justice, and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim orders passed in W.P.No. 28673 of 2022 dated 07-09-2022 until further orders in the interest of justice, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim orders passed in WP.No. 28673 of 2022 dated 07-09-2022 until disposal of writ petition, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim orders passed in W.P.No. 28673 of 2022 dated 07-09-2022 until disposal of writ petition, in the interest of justice, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim orders passed in W.P.No. 28673 of 2022 dated 07-09-2022 till disposal of writ petition, in the interest of justice, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KONDREDDY VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Y N VIVEKANANDA

2. (SC FOR INCOMETAX ) 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 2nd respondent herein had taken up assessment proceedings, for the assessment year 2013-14, in the case of the late husband of the petitioner, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 2nd respondent, on the basis of certain information received by the Income Tax Department, had re-opened the assessment of the late husband of the petitioner for the assessment 2012- 13, under Section 147 of the Act.

2. The reason for such reopening was the information obtained by the Income Tax Department that the late husband of the petitioner had constructed a Kalyanamandapam during the relevant assessment period 2012-13. The late husband, of the petitioner, had filed his objections stating that the construction of the Kalyanamandapam had taken place for the period covered by the assessment period 2013-14. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment period 2012-13 were closed and assessment proceedings were initiated for the assessment period 2013-14.

3. The 2nd respondent had thereafter issued a notice calling upon the late husband of the petitioner to explain the sources of funds in relation to the cost of construction of the Kalyanamandapam for the assessment year 2013-14. The late husband of the petitioner had submitted his explanation as well as the sources of his funds in relation to the cost of construction of Kalyanamandapam. As part of this exercise, the late husband of the petitioner 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 had also submitted a valuation report given by a Chartered Engineer, who was also a Registered Valuer by the Income Tax Department. In the course of the assessment process, which included exchange of notices and submission of various documents, the husband of the petitioner passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide her reply, informed the Assessing Authority about the demise of her husband.

4. The 2nd respondent issued a final notice, dated 26.07.2022, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the required information, as sought in Paragraph No.11.4 of the said show-cause notice and fixed the date of hearing as 28.07.2022. This date seems to have been fixed on account of the fact that the period of limitation, for passing such an assessment, was expiring by the end of July, 2022.

5. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed an order of assessment on

29.07.2022. This order of assessment, dated 29.07.2022, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, raised in the Writ Petition. One of the issues raised by the petitioner was that the notice, dated 26.07.2022, did not reach her inasmuch as she was travelling between Varanasi and Gudur by train and has produced copies of the tickets on which she is said to have been travelling between Varanasi and Gudur, during that period. The petitioner contends that the order, passed by the 2nd respondent, on 29.07.2022, violates principles of natural justice as she was not given reasonable amount of time to produce the 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 necessary documents and also on the ground that the order had been passed without hearing her.

6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the notice, dated 26.07.2022, had been served by affixture on the wall of the petitioner’s residence and consequently, she cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice. The order of assessment also stated that the assessment order was being passed as the assessment was getting barred, by limitation, on 31.07.2022.

8. The aforesaid statement, in the order of assessment, makes it clear that the 2nd respondent, under the pressure of completing the assessment, before the expiry of limitation, had passed the order of assessment without adequate opportunity being given to the petitioner. Further, the fact remains that the petitioner appears to have been out of town on account of her travel to Varanasi.

9. For both the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner to make out her case before the 2nd respondent.

10. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 29.07.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for passing appropriate 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, all the issues raised in the Writ Petition remain open as this Court has not gone into the other issues in view of the present disposal of the Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 03.02.2026 MJA ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.28673 of 2022 166 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28673/2022 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

03.02.2026 MJA