Case Law Details
Sanjay Lalwani Vs PCIT (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court reviewed petitions filed by Sanjay Lalwani challenging income tax orders for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. Lalwani argued that the orders, which included certain tax additions, were passed without granting his requested personal hearing, violating Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that while the petitioner’s objections were considered, the lack of a personal hearing contravened principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that a personal hearing is a crucial right under the Act, which allows taxpayers to fully present their case. Consequently, the court declared the impugned orders as non-est in law, meaning they are invalid and without legal effect. The court set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for reconsideration. The PCIT was instructed to provide Lalwani with a personal hearing, giving clear notice of fourteen days, and to issue a new, detailed order within four weeks after the hearing. The petitions were allowed without costs, and all related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed the above three writ petitions challenging the impugned orders of the first respondent dated 29.03.2024 passed in respect of Assessment Years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2018-19 respectively.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the three assessment years, additions were made by virtue of the impugned orders. The only grievance of the petitioner is that they have filed objections in respect of all the assessment years and requested for personal hearing, which the petitioner is entitled in terms of the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel submits that the said request for personal hearing was not provided and therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned orders have been passed and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matters are to be remanded back for reconsideration so as to enable the petitioner to appear before the authority concerned and explain their case.
3. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that though the objections were considered in the impugned orders, the request for personal hearing in terms of Section 263 of the Act was not provided and therefore, he prays that appropriate orders may be passed taking into consideration of the same.
4. I have given due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the Revenue.
5. In the present case, the assessment orders were passed pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2018-19 respectively, making some additions. In respect of all the assessment years, the petitioner has given a reply stating that the additions made were not proper and to be deleted and also requested for an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 263 of the Act. It is admitted by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given before passing the impugned orders. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is non-est in law and will have to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29.03.2024 passed by the first respondent in respect of Assessment Years 2017-18, 2019-20 and 201819 respectively are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the first respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, for reconsideration. The first respondent is directed to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in respect of the three assessment years with fourteen days clear notice and after hearing the petitioner, pass a detailed order within a period of four weeks thereafter.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
