9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 for furnishing the written submissions and documentary evidence, which he failed and on last date i.e. on 31.07.2023 he made a request for fifteen days further time for furnishing written submissions and supporting documentary evidence. The petitioner did not upload the documents and written submissions even within the time asked by him and in fact the time has extended till 18.08.2023 HELD THAT:- Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment of MS Radha Krishan Industries [ 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] regarding the exception for entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternate efficacious remedy, we are of view that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exceptions ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Saranya Babu, Smt. Aditya Venugopalan, Smt. Nikitha Susan Paulson, Sri. Mahesh Chandran, Smt. Shallet K. Sam For The Respondents: By Adv. Sri. Jose Joseph - SC - IT JUDGMENT DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aswin Gopakumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jose Joseph, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order on appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'NFAC' for short) on 23.08.2023 which is instituted against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the assessing authority in respect of the assessment year 2017-18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r adjourning the hearing to 02.09.2023. The appellate authority without granting time as requested by the petitioner, passed the impugned Exhibit P-8 order on merits. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal remains pending for almost three years before the appellate authority. After three years it was taken up for hearing and the petitioner was issued first notice Exhibit P-4 dated 20.07.2023 in which the petitioner requested for fifteen days i.e. up to 15.08.2023 for furnishing the written submissions and documentary evidences. No decision was communicated on the said request of the petitioner and the second notice Exhibit P-6 dated 10.08.2023 was issued to the petitioner asking him to upload the written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing written submissions and supporting documentary evidence. The petitioner did not upload the documents and written submissions even within the time asked by him and in fact the time has extended till 18.08.2023 vide Exhibit P-6 dated 10.08.2023. On 18.08.2023 i.e. on the last date of Exhibit P-6 notice petitioner again made a request to extend the stipulated time vide Exhibit P-6 till 02.09.2023. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek time again and again for uploading written submissions and documentary evidence in support thereof. A person who despite notice does not respond to the said notice cannot complain about the violation of the principles of natural justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till 02.09.2023. The petitioner cannot complaint that he was not afforded opportunity to file written submissions and supporting documents. He had time till 18.08.2023 from 20.07.2023. But he failed to furnish written submissions and documentary evidence and again he requested for further time till 02.09.2023 pursuant to Exhibit P-6 notice dated 18.08.2023. A person who fails to avail the opportunity granted to him to make submissions and produce documents in support thereof cannot complain about the violation of principles of natural justice. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice arises when, without an opportunity of hearing or time for producing the evidence, the authority proceeds and passes an order against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with." 9. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment of MS Radha Krishan Industries regarding the exception for entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternate efficacious remedy, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exceptions carve out for entertaining the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
