9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an ex-parte assessment order, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Thus, evaluation of assessment of the petitioner's income and rejecting the submissions of the petitioner was undertaken also ought to have been appropriately undertaken by following the natural rules of fairness adhering to the principles of natural justice and such infirmity at least should have been addressed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT makes it clear that it proceeded to deal with the case of the petitioner on merits as is evident from paragraph 5 of its order. The petitioner submitted that considering the fact that the order impugned before the ITAT itself was passed by respondent no. 2 was passed ex-parte, it would be just and proper for the ITAT to remand the matter to respondent no. 2 for passing orders on merits, after considering submissions of the petitioner. Also, the written submissions being tendered on behalf of the petitioner before the ITAT on 12 March 2024 the same appear to have not being considered in the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. We accordingly remand the proceedings to the ITAT, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r short) for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 1 August 2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 57,84,740/-. The petitioner had claimed relief under section 89 (1) of the IT Act for an amount of Rs. 13,22,187/-. Subsequently, the petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assessed Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Pursuant thereto, a notice under section 143 (2) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner on 31 March 2021, followed by notice dated 16 August 2021 issued under section 142 (1) of the IT Act, calling for details and documents. In response to such notices, the petitioner submitted copies of computation of income, Form 26AS, Form 16, Form 10E along with other supporting documents. 8. Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated 16 September 2021 to the petitioner directing him to furnish his reply on or before 19 September 2021. The petitioner filed his submissions/reply dated 16 September 2021 to the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order issued by respondent no. 2. The petitioner also requested for the grant of a personal hearing through video conferencing, which was so granted on 23 September 2021. 9. According to the petitioner the reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with rule 47 (1) of the IT Rules. The petitioner supported his case on the grounds set out in the appeal memo. 15. The appeal filed by the petitioner was listed for hearing on 11 March 2024 before the Division Bench of ITAT, Pune. The petitioner's advocate submitted that the matter was required to be remanded to the NFAC, on the ground that the order of the NFAC was an ex-parte order, as it was passed in absence of a hearing being granted to the petitioner/his representative. The petitioner's CA also filed an affidavit in this regard. The ITAT rejected the petitioner's prayer to remand the matter to NFAC and insisted on hearing the appeal on merits. The petitioner's advocate then requested for a short adjournment, so that a paper book could be submitted. However, such request was denied. The petitioner's advocate then requested to the ITAT to grant one day's time to submit such paper book and to take up appeal for hearing on merits on the next date. Such request was also rejected by the ITAT. The petitioner's advocate was directed to submit written submissions and paper book on the basis of which, the ITAT would pass appropriate orders. The petitioner through his legal repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 4. Vaishali Gatagat I.T.A. No. 1400/PUN/2023 He would thus urge that ITAT had in similar facts and circumstances remanded the matter to the assessing officer for further consideration on merits. As the ITAT did not adopt the same approach in the present case. According to him a fair approach ought to have been adopted by the ITAT considering the facts of the case, as no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents. 20. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Saxena, the learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and the reasoning set out therein. The respondents' case is that the petitioner was given several opportunities to represent its case before respondent no. 2 and before the ITAT. However, the petitioner for reasons best known, failed to avail such opportunities available to the petitioner. The ITAT in adjudicating the petitioner's appeal has correctly analyzed the case of the petitioner on merits with particular reference to the proviso to section 89 of the IT Act under which no relief could have been granted to the petitioner, in respect of the amount received or receivable by the petitioner on his voluntary retirement or termination of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arte, it would be just and proper for the ITAT to remand the matter to respondent no. 2 for passing orders on merits, after considering submissions of the petitioner. Also, the written submissions being tendered on behalf of the petitioner before the ITAT on 12 March 2024 the same appear to have not being considered in the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. We may refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union AIR 1999 SC 564. The Supreme Court inter alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. In the facts and circumstances of the given case, it will be apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar 1969 1 SCC 591. The Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
