Dr Madhukar G Angur vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Madhukar G Angur, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside an assessment order dated December 31, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that due to ongoing litigation concerning the management of M/s. Alliance University, he was unable to provide a complete response and all necessary documents to Respondent No. 2. He requested an opportunity to submit a detailed reply and for the matter to be reconsidered. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and that the petitioner had already filed an appeal, making the writ petition inappropriate. The petitioner then stated he would withdraw the pending appeal.

Held

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated December 31, 2021, and all consequential orders and notices. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) for fresh reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that his inability to provide a complete response was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach to provide the petitioner with another opportunity. Crucially, all rival contentions between the petitioner, respondents, and any impleading applicants, including issues of jurisdiction and limitation, were expressly kept open for decision in the fresh proceedings, with the Court expressing no opinion on their merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition when an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, as per Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that he was unable to provide a complete response to the assessment order due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances related to litigation concerning M/s. Alliance University. He sought one more opportunity to submit a detailed reply and have the matter reconsidered. He also undertook to withdraw his pending appeal. Revenue's argument: The respondents contended that the writ petition had no merit and should be dismissed, particularly because the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the impugned order, thus precluding the entertainment of the writ petition.