2025 (1) TMI 598 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of order passed by the DCIT - objections filed by the petitioner to notice u/s 153C(1) have been rejected - HELD THAT - After the order was passed by this Court 2024 (8) TMI 1512 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT required the respondents to decide the objection after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the notice dated 2.9.2024 was issued requiring him to file objection dated 12.11.2023 and other materials within seven days and also required the petitioner to appear and argue the matter through authorized representative. However, apparently no date was fixed for the purpose of arguing the matter. Admittedly, within the given seven days, the petitioner has produced the material on 6.9.2024 and thereafter, the matter was decided on 22.10.2024 and during the said period, the authority before deciding the matter apparently had not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Apparently the order has been passed by the authority contrary to the directions contained in order dated 28.8.2024 and as such, the same cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 22.10.2024, Annexure-13, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority to hear the petitioner and decide the matter afresh. The petitioner/his authorized representative shall appear before the authority on 28.01.2025.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra, complied with the procedural requirements mandated by the court's previous orders when rejecting the petitioner's objections under Section 153-C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity of hearing before the order dated 22.10.2024 was passed.
What are the implications of the authority's failure to provide an opportunity of hearing on the validity of the order dated 22.10.2024?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 153-C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which outlines the procedure for assessing income in certain cases. The court's previous orders required the respondents to handle the assessment proceedings in accordance with the law and provide the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the requirement for a hearing as a fundamental procedural step that must be adhered to, as directed in its earlier order dated 28.8.2024.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the petitioner submitted the requisite documents within the specified period but was not given a specific date for a hearing, nor was a hearing conducted before the order was passed.
Application of Law to Facts: The failure to provide a hearing was a violation of the procedural requirements set by the court, rendering the order dated 22.10.2024 procedurally flawed.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that there was no evidence of the petitioner's interest in a personal hearing. However, the court found this argument insufficient to justify the lack of a hearing.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the procedural requirements were not met, and thus, the order could not stand.

Issue 2: Fair Opportunity of Hearing

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of natural justice, which includes the right to a fair hearing, is a cornerstone of legal proceedings.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that the opportunity for a hearing is an essential component of procedural fairness, especially when mandated by a court order.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that no date was set for a hearing, and no hearing was conducted, despite the petitioner submitting the required documents.
Application of Law to Facts: The lack of a hearing was a clear breach of the principle of natural justice and the court's directive.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument that the petitioner's interest in a hearing was not evident was dismissed by the court, as the obligation to provide a hearing was on the authority.
Conclusions: The court held that the absence of a hearing invalidated the order, necessitating its quashing.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "In that view of the matter, apparently the order dated 22.10.2024 has been passed by the authority contrary to the directions contained in order dated 28.8.2024 and as such, the same cannot be sustained."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that adherence to procedural requirements and the right to a fair hearing are integral to the validity of administrative orders.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the order dated 22.10.2024 and remanded the matter back to the authority with instructions to conduct a hearing and decide the matter afresh.

The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the right to a fair hearing in administrative proceedings, particularly when such requirements are explicitly directed by a court. The failure to adhere to these principles led to the quashing of the impugned order and a remand for fresh consideration. The petitioner is required to appear before the authority on 28.01.2025, with the provision that failure to appear would allow the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →