Revenue authorities' Section 148A order quashed for wrong name, PAN number, ignoring petitioner's reply, violating natural justice principles

The Madras HC quashed an order under Section 148A and consequential notice under Section 148 for reopening assessment. The revenue authorities issued the order with wrong name and PAN number, failed to consider petitioner's reply dated 24.03.2022 received before passing the impugned order, and violated principles of natural justice through non-application of mind. The court found the petitioner categorically denied ownership of the subject property in his reply. Matter remanded to revenue authorities for fresh consideration on merits, allowing petitioner opportunity to file additional reply.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Section 148A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed under Section 148A of the Act, citing various grounds. Firstly, the petitioner argued that the order was a nullity as his name was wrongly mentioned as Muktha Seth instead of Devarajulu Jayakothandaraman. Secondly, the petitioner claimed that although he replied to the notice within the stipulated time, the reply was not considered in the impugned order, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner contended that he was entitled to send the reply through the e-portal but had to do so physically due to issues with his PAN number. The petitioner also disputed ownership of the property mentioned in the notice, asserting that it was not his and requested the proceedings against him be dropped. The petitioner further argued that the impugned order wrongly disclosed the name and PAN number, which did not match his details. The second respondent denied the allegations and maintained that the petitioner did not send a reply within the specified time frame, despite evidence presented by the petitioner showing dispatch and receipt dates of the reply.

The Court observed that the reply sent by the petitioner was received before the impugned order was passed, and the second respondent should have considered it. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of not owning the mentioned property was not supported by evidence and that the second respondent had admitted the typographical error in mentioning the petitioner's name. The Court found that the impugned order and consequential notice were issued erroneously, without due consideration of the petitioner's reply and in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to submit an additional reply within two weeks. The second respondent was instructed to pass final orders within one month, considering both replies in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and consequential notice, and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit an additional reply, and the second respondent was directed to pass final orders within the specified timeframe, adhering to legal provisions under Section 148(d) of the Act.

---