✦ High Court of India · 09 Apr 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 09 Apr 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

09 Apr 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,428 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No. 11746 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :09.04.2025CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No. 11746 of 2025 andW.M.P.Nos.13286 & 13287 of 2025 Pennagaram Kuppusamy Pounraj ...Petitioner Vs.1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, rep. by Income Tax Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, 45F7+ RMP, Dharmapuri, T.N. 636 701.3. ICICI Bank Ltd., rep. By its Branch Manager, No.74, Nethaji Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri, T.N. 636 701. 4. South Indian Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, DRV Annexe, 64 Nethaji By-pass Rod, Dharmapuri, T.N. - 636 701.5. HDFC Bank, rep. by its Branch Manager, Salem Main Road, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri T.N. 636 705. ...Respondents 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records of the proceedings in the impugned assessment order dated 16.01.2025, bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072233023(1) for the assessment year 2020-2021 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to de-freeze the petitioner's bank accounts, viz., (1) current account, bearing No.605705014943 maintained with ICICI Bank, No.74, Nethaji Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri Branch, Dharmapuri (II) Current Account, bearing No.501004773269237 maintained with HDFC Bank, Salem Main Road, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri Branch, Dharmapuri and iii) Current Account, bearing 0511073000000335 maintained with South Indian Bank, DRV Annexe, 64, Nethaji By-pass Road, Dharmapuri Branch, Dharmapuri. For Petitioner : Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian For Respondents 1 & 2 : Dr.B.Ramaswamy, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondents 3 to 5 : Mr.C.Mohan and Ms.A.Rexy Josephine for M/s.King and PartridgeOrder Heard Mr.Kishore Balasubramanian learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who take notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.Mohan and Ms.A.Rexy 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025Josephine, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent No.5. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 16.01.2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to de-freeze the petitioner's bank accounts. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been issued with any notice in person and the notice was sent only through e-mail, that too, not to the current e-mail address, ''[email protected], but to the former e-mail ID, ''''[email protected]/[email protected]) '' and the petitioner, who was ignorant of such notice being issued to their former e-mail ID, failed to respond to the notices sent by the respondent-Income Tax Department, but, the first respondent, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, proceeded to pass the assessment order. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 20253.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside,4. Dr.B.Ramaswamy, the learned Senior Standing Counsel (T) for the respondent-Income Tax Department strongly raised objection to the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that apart from uploading the notice through Portal, the petitioner was also issued with a notice through e-mail, therefore, the petitioner cannot have a say that no notice has been issued. Further, it is contended that the petitioner also cannot plead ignorance of the notices sent by the respondent-Department under the guise that notice was not sent to them to the present e-mail ID, viz., ''''[email protected], when admittedly, the petitioner's primary e-mail ID remains to be the same, viz., '''[email protected]/[email protected]) however, he fairly submits that, in the event, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their defence, by remanding the matter back to the Authority concerned, the same may be done, subject to certain terms. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 20255. I have given due considerations to the submissions made by the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent-Income Tax Department.. The petitioner, till FY 2015-16 has been filing tax returns regularly with the help of the Chartered Accountant through the petitioner's Firm registered e-mail ID, bearing address as follows ''[email protected]/[email protected]). Thereafter, the said Auditor resigned in the year 2016, and during the period between FY 2016-17 and 2021-22, since the petitioner did not have any taxable income, did not file returns during the aforesaid period, however, from 2020 onwards, again, the petitioner has been filing returns with the current Auditor, S.Prahalad. through registered e-mail ID '[email protected].' 6.1 Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that while the petitioner has filed returns recently through the registered e-mail id, '[email protected].' the respondent-Department, instead of sending notice to the current e-mail id, has sent notice to the previous e-mail 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025id, and the petitioner, who was ignorant of such notices, failed to file reply and give appropriate response, however, the first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order. 6.2 Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that notice was sent to the primary e-mail id of the petitioner, viz.,''[email protected]/[email protected]), therefore, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of the same. 6.3 However, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as a Fact-finding Authority and delve into such disputed questions of fact and examine the veracity of the statements made by the rival parties, when the fact remains that the petitioner has neither filed reply nor participated in the proceedings before passing the impugned assessment order, the order can only be deemed to be an exparte, as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 20256.4 Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to file reply and participate in the proceedings by setting aside the impugned assessment order, however, subject to certain proviso. 6.5 Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following order/direction:-i) The impugned assessment order dated 16.01.2025 is set aside. ii)The matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, however, the same is subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand only) as costs to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, bearing Account No.7883022723, IFSC Code: IDIB000M157 respondent-Department within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. . 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025iii) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment made by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to open the Portal, so as to enable the petitioner to file his reply. iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file reply within a period of three weeks therefrom, by treating the assessment order as a show cause notice. v) Thereupon, the first respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by issuing a clear 14 days notice and thereafter, shall hear the petitioner in full and decide the matter in accordance with law.vi) So far as the attachment of the petitioner's bank account is concerned, once the impugned order is set aside, any recovery proceedings initiated based on such impugned proceedings has to be necessarily given a go-by, therefore, the second respondent, is directed to take appropriate steps towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account by issuing appropriate directions to the bank officials, viz., respondents 3 to 5, based on which, the 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025bank officials shall permit the petitioner to operate the same, without any hassle. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 09.04.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noTo1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, rep. by Income Tax Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, 45F7+ RMP, Dharmapuri, T.N. 636 701.3. ICICI Bank Ltd., rep. By its Branch Manager, No.74, Nethaji Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri, T.N. 636 701. 4. South Indian Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, DRV Annexe, 64 Nethaji By-pass Rod, Dharmapuri, T.N. - 636 701.5. HDFC Bank, rep. by its Branch Manager, Salem Main Road, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri T.N. 636 7059/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 11746 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No. 11746 of 2025 09.04.202510/10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India