Top Stories Income Tax Notices Unanswered as Authorised Representative Hospitalised for Surgery: Madras HC grants Opportunity to File Reply [Read Order] The Court found the reason for the non-response genuine and observed that the department ought to have accommodated the request considering the health emergency. By Navasree A.M – On May 19, 2025 10:43 am – 2 mins read The Madras High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer whose authorised representative was hospitalised and unable to respond to income tax notices. The writ petition challenged an impugned assessment order dated March 1, 2025, passed by the Income Tax Department, citing violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued on July 10, 2024, and January 2, 2025.

However, during this period, the petitioner’s authorised representative was admitted to the hospital for gallbladder surgery, rendering him unable to respond to the notices.  Although a request for extension of time was submitted, the department proceeded to issue further notices under Sections 144 and 144B of the Act. The petitioner responded to those notices by again requesting time, citing ongoing medical treatment. Also read: ITR Processing Delay: 78-Year-Old Senior Citizen Waits Over 2 Years, Here’s the Income Tax Dept’s Response GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here Subsequently, a letter dated February 10, 2025, was issued by the department fixing a date for personal hearing on February 14, 2025. Due to the continuing medical condition of the petitioner’s representative, they were unable to appear for the hearing. Despite being informed of the circumstances, the department proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting further time or opportunity, leading to the current writ petition. The Senior Standing Counsel for the department submitted that all statutory notices were duly issued and that the petitioner failed to respond despite receiving them.

It was contended that sufficient opportunity was provided, including a chance for personal hearing. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner had brought the authorised representative’s medical condition to the attention of the Assessing Officer. Also read: Wife Seeks Income Tax Refund of Deceased Husband’s Salary Tax with 6% Interest: Madras HC Directs To Make Representation Before ITO Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here The Court found the reason for the non-response genuine and observed that the department ought to have accommodated the request considering the health emergency. It was held that passing the impugned order without giving sufficient time violated the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated March 1, 2025, and remanded the matter to the department for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks from the date the portal is reopened. The Assessing Officer has been instructed to fix a personal hearing date with a clear 14-day notice and pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner