2024 (1) TMI 497 - HC - Income Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - personal hearing lasted only for eight minutes - HELD THAT - The video recording of the personal hearing indicates that the petitioner's Chartered Accountant was heard patiently and the petitioner's Chartered Accountant requested time for uploading the written submissions which was also later uploaded by the Chartered Accountant on 16.01.2023. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there was violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the impugned Assessment Order passed by the respondent does not warrant interference. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the impugned Assessment Orders before the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the aggrievement by the petitioner regarding the Assessment Order, violation of principles of natural justice, and the adequacy of the personal hearing granted.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 28.02.2023 and the consequential notice dated 19.04.2023, following a previous challenge to an Assessment Order dated 26.09.2022 for AY 2020-2021. The initial challenge was successful due to the lack of a personal hearing opportunity, leading to the order being set aside for a de novo assessment after a personal hearing.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the personal hearing granted resulted in a violation of principles of natural justice as it was allegedly conducted for only eight minutes through Video Conferencing. However, the respondent produced a video recording of the hearing, demonstrating that the petitioner's Chartered Accountant was heard patiently and allowed time for written submissions.

Jurisdiction and Alternate Remedy:
The Court noted that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent the alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner. The impugned Assessment Order could only be interfered with if there was a violation of principles of natural justice, which was not substantiated based on the video recording of the personal hearing.

Decision:
Ultimately, the Court found that the arguments regarding the violation of principles of natural justice were unfounded, and therefore, the impugned Assessment Order did not warrant interference. The Writ Petitions were dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within thirty days.