Sitaram Ramagopal v. Assessment Unit

Order In this writ petition, the petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 on several grounds. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge to the violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶2It is submitted that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.10.2023, to which no reply was submitted. However, the petitioner had earlier filed a reply to the notice dated 03.02.2023 issued under Section 142(1), as well as the another notice under section 143(2) dated 10.02.2023, vide reply dated 16.02.2023.

¶3It is further submitted that, even though the petitioner failed to respond to the notice dated 25.10.2023, the replies dated 08.02.2023 and 16.02.2023, submitted in response to the earlier notices, ought to have been considered while passing the impugned order.

¶4The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has income from the sale of petroleum products and from renting property to Bharat Petroleum. It is submitted that both sources of income have been duly disclosed in the returns filed by the petitioner on 20.05.2022, in response to the notices issued under Section 148 dated 22.04.2022. Page2 of 5

¶5It is further submitted that, in the reply, the petitioner had categorically stated the nature of the business, sources of income, and furnished all relevant details. However, the same has not been considered.

¶6The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, has also challenged the order on the ground of limitation in the issuance of the notice under Section 148A(d). It is submitted that the amount involved is more than Rs.50,00,000/- lakhs and, therefore, the proceedings initiated from the issuance of the notice under Section 148, which have culminated in the impugned order, cannot be challenged.

¶7After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the case can remitted back to the Respondents to pass a fresh order on merits. Although the respondents cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned order dated

28.11.2023 in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated

25.10.2023, the respondent ought to have considered the nature of the business and the documents filed by the petitioner in response to the notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) dated 03.02.2023 and 10.02.2023, vide replies dated

08.02.2023 and 16.02.2023 respectively. Page3 of 5

¶8Considering the same, the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order av To

¶1Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance.

¶2Income Tax Officer Ward-1(6), Chennai-Wanaparthy Block, No.121, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Page4 of 5 C.SARAVANAN J. av 16-02-2026 Page5 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and WMP Nos.1653, 1656 and 1658 of 2024 Sitaram Ramagopal ..Petitioner Vs 1. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(6), Chennai-Wanaparthy Block, No.121, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in PAN No. AAJPR5837M for assessment year AY 2015-16 and quash the Impugned Order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the 1st Respondent in DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1058331598(1) dated 28.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and quash the Order dated 28.11.2023 and direct the Respondent to hear the assessment proceedings in PAN number : for AY 2015- 16 by granting opportunity to the Petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.G Vardini Karthik For Respondents : Mrs.C.P.Priya, Senior Standing Counsel Page1 of 5