2025 (1) TMI 821 - HC - Income Tax

Breach of principles of natural justice - no adequate time was granted to the petitioner to submit a reply - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not bothered to disclose any details of its Chartered Accountant s request dated 16 March 2024 and the reasons set out therein in this petition. The contention about the difficulty of taking screenshots, etc., does not inspire confidence. We are satisfied that this relevant adjournment request was not disclosed because the petitioner realised that this disclosure would be inconvenient to the case of an alleged breach of principles of natural justice, which was being projected before us. Such non-disclosure, or rather suppression, cannot be appreciated. Thus, the petitioner made a patently incorrect statement about the availability of an alternate remedy and was not very candid with the Court. Besides, this is not a case of any patent breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner does not allege the absence of any opportunity; rather, the petitioner s grievance concerns inadequate opportunity. The issue of inadequate opportunity could always have been raised in an appeal against the assessment order. Even now, the petitioner is at liberty to raise such contention in an appeal, should the petitioner choose to institute an appeal. However, we are satisfied that no case is made out to depart from the usual practice of requiring the petitioner to exhaust the alternate and statutory remedies available in the facts of this case. We decline to entertain this petition, leaving it to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order in accordance with the law since we have not examined its merits.

Summary

In the case before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 20 March 2024, claiming a breach of the principles of natural justice due to inadequate time to respond and unjustified denial of adjournment requests. The petitioner argued that no alternate efficacious remedy was available, which the court found incorrect, noting the statutory appeal process outlined in the assessment order itself.

The court examined the adjournment request made by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant on 16 March 2024, which was not disclosed in the petition. The court found this non-disclosure, or suppression, inappropriate, as it undermined the petitioner's claim of a natural justice breach. The court emphasized that the grievance of inadequate opportunity could be addressed in an appeal against the assessment order.

Concluding that there was no patent breach of natural justice and that the petitioner had not exhausted available statutory remedies, the court declined to entertain the petition. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal if desired, and vacated any interim orders. All parties' contentions remain open should the petitioner choose to appeal.