9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 12th March 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1;" A) Issue Before the Court: 4. The primary issue that falls for consideration revolves around the legality and validity of impugned order of ITAT dated 12 March 2024 alleged to be passed without hearing the petitioner and/or his representative and without considering the written submissions filed by the petitioner, in contravention of the well settled jurisprudential principles of natural justice. (B) Factual Matrix: The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present proceedings are:- 5. The petitioner assessee in the present case is a 64 years old retired serviceman, who earned income primarily from salary for the relevant assessment year being Assessment Year 2019-2020 ("A.Y. 2019-20" in short). He was then an employee of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. ("Pfizer Healthcare" for short) posted at Aurangabad from where he derived his salary income. 6. Respondent no. 1/ITAT which passed the impugned order dated 12 March 2024 under section 254 (1) of the IT Act ought not to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner under section 89 (1) of the IT Act for an amount of Rs. 13,22,187/- was rejected by the assessment order. 11. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said assessment order, approached the National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC" in short) by filing an appeal dated 28 October 2021 in Form 35 under section 246A (1) of the IT Act read with rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("IT Rules" for short), on the grounds as set out in the said appeal memo. 12. It was during the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the NFAC that various notices under section 250 of the IT Act were issued to the petitioner on 31 August 2022, 15 March 2023, 9 May 2023, 22 June 2023, 6 July 2023, 25 July 2023, 3 August 2023 and 4 September 2023. However, the petitioner's Chartered Accountant ("CA" in short) could not respond to the above notices, and sought adjournments, mainly on the ground that a senior CA was intended to be engaged to defend the petitioner in the said proceedings. 13. On the aforesaid backdrop, the NFAC proceeded to pass an ex-parte order dated 8 September 2023, rejecting the petitioner's appeal filed before it, thereby confirming the assessment order passed by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeded to pass the impugned order. 18. Mr. Bora, would urge that as it is the petitioner was aggrieved by an ex-parte order dated 8 September 2023 passed by respondent no. 2 and it was against such order, the petitioner approached the ITAT in the appeal in question under section 253 of the IT Act, in the hope of justice. However, the ITAT despite an ex-parte order being suffered by the petitioner at the hands of respondent no. 2, refused to remand the proceedings to respondent no. 2, despite such prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Bora, would further submit that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to plead his case before the ITAT in as much as ITAT even turndown the request made by the petitioner's Advocate to submit a paper book for which a short adjournment was sought. Mr. Bora, would then submit that despite furnishing written submission along with the paper book and the relevant case laws on 12 March 2024 the ITAT disregarded the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order on the petitioner's appeal causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. 19. Considering the above Mr. Bora would refer to the following orders passed by the ITAT on the same day, i.e., 12 March 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the settled principles of natural justice is not just apparent but real, palpable and clearly visible. The petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to present its case not only before the respondent no. 2 but also subsequently before the ITAT. In not affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present its case had perpetuated from the ex-parte order passed by respondent no. 2 which in our opinion was not noticed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order. 22. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e., respondent no. 2 under the faceless regime passed 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. 23. 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 evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
