2025 (2) TMI 1043 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of order passed u/s 250 - penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner were decided in a manner prejudicial to the natural justice - denial of personal hearing - Rejection of exemption claimed u/s 10 (23C) (iiiab) - HELD THAT - In the instant case the petitioner has moved a rejoinder before the Appellate Authority requesting for a personal hearing but the said request was not considered by the Appellate Authority. If the application/request was made for personal hearing by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority the Income Tax authority ought to have allowed the said application by arranging for video conferencing argument. At least in the instant case it stands established the request from the petitioner was made before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that there is a violation of principle of natural justice and if the defect of principle of violation of natural justice has occurred in the initial stage of proceedings it cannot be cured at the stage of appeal. No doubt the petitioner has a right to avail the statutory appellate remedy but when the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2 in violation of principle of natural justice it cannot be alleviated. WP allowed.

1986 (10) TMI 37 - SC

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Court considered the following core legal issues:

Whether the proceedings before the respondent violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, particularly concerning the interpretation of "wholly or substantially financed" by the Government.
Whether the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy available, thus affecting the maintainability of the writ petition.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 250 of the Income Tax Act mandates communication of the order to the assessee and provides the right to a personal hearing. The principles of natural justice, including the audi alteram partem rule, are fundamental to ensuring fair proceedings.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, violating Section 250 and principles of natural justice.
Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned order was neither physically communicated nor uploaded to the income tax portal. The petitioner learned of the order only upon receiving a reminder letter related to penalty proceedings.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the failure to provide a personal hearing and communicate the order constituted a breach of statutory requirements and natural justice principles.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had alternative remedies, but the Court held that a defect in natural justice at the initial stage could not be cured by subsequent appellate opportunities.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to the violation of natural justice principles.

Denial of Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10(23C)(iiiab) provides for exemption if an institution is "wholly or substantially financed" by the Government. Rule 2BBB specifies that government grants exceeding 50% of total receipts qualify as substantial financing.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the ambiguity in the interpretation of "wholly or substantially financed" and the retrospective application of Rule 2BBB.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that government grants constituted 46.61% of its total receipts, which was below the 50% threshold.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court did not delve into the merits of the exemption claim, focusing instead on procedural fairness.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent upheld the denial of exemption based on the percentage of government grants, while the petitioner sought a liberal interpretation favoring the assessee.
Conclusions: The Court did not make a determination on the exemption claim, leaving it to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority.

Availability of Alternative Remedies

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The existence of alternative remedies, such as appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, typically affects the maintainability of writ petitions.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the availability of alternative remedies but emphasized that a violation of natural justice at the initial stage warranted judicial intervention.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had filed a rectification application and intended to appeal to the Tribunal, but the Court focused on the procedural defect in the initial proceedings.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the procedural defect justified setting aside the impugned order, notwithstanding the alternative remedies.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued for dismissal based on alternative remedies, but the Court prioritized the natural justice violation.
Conclusions: The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the impugned order due to the procedural defect.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "A defect of natural justice existing in the trial stage, cannot be cured by giving an opportunity of hearing at the appellate stage."
Core Principles Established: The principles of natural justice, including the right to a personal hearing, are paramount and cannot be overlooked even if alternative remedies exist.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court set aside the impugned order due to the violation of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration with a directive to provide a personal hearing.

The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority for a personal hearing, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to decide the case within 45 days from the hearing date, allowing the petitioner to raise all relevant objections. The Court refrained from addressing the merits of the assessment, focusing solely on procedural rectification.

← Previous Next →