2021 (5) TMI 882 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner allowed to challenge assessment order under Income Tax Act due to father's condition.

Annamalai Ganesh Versus Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Vellore, Thiruvannamalai

The court allowed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer to present his case regarding a challenge to an assessment order under the Income ... Order passed u/s 144 greatly prejudices the petitioner - Non-appearance was on account of the fact that his father had suffered a traumatic road accident in March, 2017, which rendered him brain dead - HELD THAT:- As noted that there has been a hiatus of two years between the discharge of the petitioner's father and the issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer prior to framing of assessment, vide order dated 08.12.2019. Taking a humanitarian view of the matter, to which there is no serious opposition put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents substantial interests of justice would require permitting the petitioner to cause appearance before the Assessing Officer/R2 and put forth his submission. The files for assessment of the petitioner appear to have been transferred from R1 to R2. No challenge is put forth to the transfer of files from R1 to R2. Thus the impugned order and the consequent rectification are set aside. The petitioner will appear before R2 along with all/necessary materials in support of his stand on Wednesday, the 12th of May, 2021. Issues:Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961 based on humanitarian grounds.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 08.12.2019 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent rectification order dated 21.07.2020. The petitioner's non-appearance was due to his father's traumatic brain injury from a road accident in March 2017, rendering him in a vegetative state. The petitioner requested another opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer to make submissions. The court noted a two-year gap between the father's discharge and the assessment order. Despite no serious opposition from the respondents, the court, considering humanitarian aspects, allowed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer to present his case. The transfer of files from one officer to another was not contested.The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer with necessary materials on a specified date. The hearing was to be conducted either virtually or physically, as mutually convenient, following the relevant Standard Operating Procedures. The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass a fresh assessment order within six weeks from the first hearing. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.