Dr Madhukar G Angur vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Madhukar G. Angur, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 31, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner contended that due to ongoing litigation concerning the management of M/s. Alliance University, he was unable to submit a complete response and all necessary documents to Respondent No. 2, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner sought an opportunity to submit a detailed response and requested the court to direct Respondent No. 2 to re-consider his claim. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, also noting that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order.

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 Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's assertion that his inability to submit a complete reply was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to submit a detailed reply with all documents. All rival contentions between the petitioner, respondents, and any impleading applicants, including issues of jurisdiction, were expressly kept open for decision in appropriate proceedings, with the Court expressing no opinion on their merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated December 31, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 153 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside due to the petitioner's inability to submit a complete response and documents owing to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the litigation concerning the management of M/s. Alliance University prevented him from providing a full and complete response with all documents to Respondent No. 2. He sought one more opportunity to submit a detailed response and requested the court to direct Respondent No. 2 to re-consider his claim. The petitioner also agreed to unconditionally withdraw an appeal filed before the appellate authority. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed. They further submitted that since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal, the writ petition should not be entertained.