Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply [Read Order]
The Court noted that the issuance of the impugned order without sufficient time for reply and without affording a personal hearing rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair and legally unsustainable.
![Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/29/2070282-aircel-ltd-taxscan.webp "Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply [Read Order]")
While granting the relief to Aircel Limited, the Madras High Court has quashed the income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court, comprised of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, observed that the show-cause notice dated 27th March 2024 was uploaded on...
While granting the relief to Aircel Limited, the Madras High Court has quashed the income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court, comprised of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, observed that the show-cause notice dated 27th March 2024 was uploaded on the income tax portal (in the order it is mentioned as GST portal, might be a clerical error) at 8:29 PM, granting the petitioner less than 24 hours to respond, with a reply deadline set for 6:09 PM on the very next day.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
Aircel’s counsel contended that this unreasonably short window, compounded by the absence of any opportunity for a personal hearing, severely impaired the company’s right to defend itself. The penalty notice arose from earlier assessment proceedings for the financial year 2016-17.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the issuance of the impugned order without sufficient time for reply and without affording a personal hearing rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair and legally unsustainable.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned penalty order dated 30th March 2024 and remanded the matter back to the Income Tax Department for fresh consideration.
The Court directed Aircel Ltd. to file its detailed reply with supporting documents within two weeks of receiving the order and instructed the department to grant a minimum 14-day notice before conducting a personal hearing and deciding the matter afresh.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
