2022 (5) TMI 416 - HC - Income Tax

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - despite request of the petitioner, the petitioner was called for a personal hearing - HELD THAT - Referring to arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents and the additional documents filed by the respondents to state that indeed a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner vide communication dated 28.09.2021 but the petitioner failed to avail an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the said intimation was few hours before the personal hearing. The time granted by the respondents to the petitioner for appearing through personal hearing at about 5.00 p.m. on the same date by issuing a notice at about 13.39 hours hardly gave enough time to the petitioner to get ready for the personal hearing. Considering the same, we are inclined to set aside the Impugned Order and remit the case back to the respondents, to pass a speaking order preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after considering the petitioner's reply/representation dated 29.09.2021. Needless, to state that the petitioner shall also be heard before a fresh Assessment Order passed by the respondents. The respondents are therefore directed to issue suitable instruction to the Administrator of the Income Tax Web Portal to facilitate the petitioner to participate through Video Conferencing in the proposed personal hearing.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order for Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Failure to provide a personal hearing despite petitioner's request.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Impugned Order for Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, claiming they were not given a personal hearing despite requesting one. The respondents argued that the petitioner was informed to file written submissions for a personal hearing, with the assessment deadline expiring soon. A personal hearing was scheduled for the next day via Video Conferencing, with short notice given to the petitioner. The court noted that while a personal hearing was granted, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity due to the short notice provided. The court acknowledged the lack of adequate time for preparation and decided to set aside the Impugned Order, remitting the case back to the respondents for a fresh assessment within sixty days, considering the petitioner's reply/representation.

The court emphasized that the petitioner must be heard before a new Assessment Order is passed. Directing the respondents to facilitate the petitioner's participation through Video Conferencing, the court disposed of the Writ Petition without costs. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of Natural Justice by ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and adequate time for preparation, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.