9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 362 - HC - Income TaxOrder passed before the time prescribed for filing the reply - faceless assessment scheme - HELD THAT - Since the impugned order has been passed before the time prescribed for filing the reply, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed with pre-set mind. In any event, the order has been passed without considering the reply received from the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner as there is a manifest violation of business of justice while passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the impugned order stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 15.03.2021.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the second respondent before the High Court. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 15.03.2021, which was digitally signed by the second respondent in the evening at about 4:22 PM. The order followed a Show Cause Notice from 04.03.2021, requiring the petitioner to file a reply digitally by 11:59 PM on 15.03.2021. The petitioner claimed to have submitted a reply before the deadline. The senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department argued that the petitioner could appeal to the Appellate Commissioner, suggesting the writ petition be dismissed. The High Court considered the arguments from both sides. It noted that the impugned order was passed before the reply deadline, indicating a pre-set decision. Moreover, the order was issued without considering the petitioner's reply, leading to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court decided to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the second respondent for a new decision based on the petitioner's reply. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by quashing the impugned order and directing the second respondent to issue a new order after considering the petitioner's reply. No costs were awarded, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
