Plea of negligence of tax consultant in not attending hearings rejected by High Court

Plea of negligence of tax consultant rejected as no complaint made against him and also tax consultant not impleaded as a party in Writ petition.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Kerala High Court rejected the plea of negligence on the part of the tax consultant in the absence of any complaints preferred against the tax consultant and also the tax consultant was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4705 (2025) (08) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner assessee had filed a Writ Petition against the judgment of the Single Judge in not giving any relief against the best judgment assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO).

In the first round of litigation, the appellant had approached the writ court aggrieved by the best judgment assessment order passed by the AO pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22.

The grievance of the appellant in the said first writ petition was that the assessment order in question was passed without affording him an opportunity for submitting proper documents and replies to the notices that had been received on his behalf by the tax consultant that he had engaged. It was specifically averred in the writ petition that it was on account of the negligent attitude of the tax consultant that the assessment proceedings could not be pursued with due rigour and ultimately led to the passing of the impugned assessment order.

It was stated that the petitioner, being a plus two drop out, was under belief that the tax practitioner was properly responding to the notices received by the petitioner and handed over to the said tax practitioner.

The petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner/assessee therein, by interfering with the assessment order when it was found that there were lapses on the part of the advocate engaged by the petitioner therein in properly contesting the matter before the statutory authority.

The Single Judge of the High Court observed from the perusal of the assessment order itself that ample opportunities had been granted to the appellant through notices served on him, and it was only when the appellant did not respond to many of those notices, as also the show cause notice issued to him, that the assessing authority was constrained to complete the assessment on best judgment basis.

The Single Judge, therefore, held that it was not a case where interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted and therefore dismissed the writ petition and relegated the appellant to his alternate remedy under the statute.

Before the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee submitted that the appellant should not be prejudiced on account of the negligent attitude of his tax consultant. It was pointed out that serious prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he was forced to approach the appellate authority because the documents that he relied on would not be perused by the appellate authority for the simple reason that they were not produced before the assessing officer.  

The Hon’ble High Court observed that ample opportunity was given to the appellant/assessee for pursuing the matter before the assessing authority. It was only because of the inaction on the part of the appellant to furnish replies, and the details sought for by the department, that the matter culminated in the passing of the assessment order, without considering any of the documents which the appellant was stated to have in his possession.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that although, it was the fervent plea that the inaction on the part of the appellant had to be attributed to the negligence on the part of the tax consultant, this plea was not acceptable especially in the absence of anything to suggest that complaints had been preferred against the tax consultant and further, because the tax consultant concerned had not been impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Appeal withdrawn against rejection u/s 12AB as assessee was availing benefit u/s 10(23C)(iiiad)
• When delay not mala fide, right of hearing on merit not to be rejected – ITAT
• Exemption u/s 54 allowed despite failure to deposit in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme
• No addition to be made in hands of assessee solely on basis of uncorroborated loose-sheet
• Claim of Leave Encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) dismissed beyond Rs. 3 lakhs