2023 (6) TMI 1036 - HC - Income Tax

Request for personal hearing through video conferencing with the second respondent rejected - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - As the petitioner claim that it has to produce voluminous documents before the Authority and hence, personal hearing through video conferencing was not provided to the petitioner. However, the AO is sitting at Chennai on 03.05.2023 at Non - Corporate Circle 11 (1), BSNL Building Tower, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006 and without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, the petitioner will be given opportunity. In view of the fair submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) appearing for the respondents, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent dated 14.03.2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer during the sitting at Chennai on 03.05.2023 in Non - Corporate Circle 11 (1), BSNL Building Tower, Greams Road, Chennai 6 at 11.00 a.m. and produce all the necessary documents without seeking any further adjournment. On hearing the petitioner, the Assessing Officer shall pass appropriate orders, as early as possible.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash re-assessment orders related to the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07.

Details of the judgment:

1. The petitioner originally declared losses and income for the respective Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2003-04 to 2006-07. Subsequently, revised Returns Of Income were filed with revised figures and claims for depreciation.

2. The first respondent disallowed the petitioner's claims and recomputed depreciation based on the book value of assets. The re-assessment orders were challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

3. The ITAT allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed the first respondent to allow exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Department then challenged the ITAT's order before the High Court.

4. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer due to a procedural error. The petitioner's request for a personal hearing through video conferencing was not considered, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice.

5. The respondents argued that the petitioner had replied to show cause notices, but the request for a personal hearing was not granted due to the need to produce voluminous documents. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

6. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on a specified date to produce all necessary documents without seeking adjournment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass appropriate orders promptly after hearing the petitioner.

7. The writ petitions were allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before the Assessing Officer.