Case Law Details
Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The recent judgment in the case of Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd Vs ACIT by the Kerala High Court has significant implications for income tax proceedings. The court found that the Income Tax order, dated Exhibit P-8, was set aside due to a failure to consider the petitioner’s request for a personal hearing through video conferencing.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the assessment order of 31.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. Communication and Request for Hearing: In response to Exhibit P-6 communication dated 26.07.2023, the petitioner sought a personal hearing through video conferencing. Despite complying with the given instructions by submitting the request through the registered e-mail www.incometax.gov.in on 28.07.2023, the petitioner was not granted the requested hearing.
3. Violation of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that the petitioner’s specific request for a personal hearing through video conferencing was ignored, leading to a violation of the prescribed principles of natural justice.
4. Setting Aside the Order: Considering the above violation, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order (Exhibit P-8). The matter was remanded back to the 2nd respondent for a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
5. Future Course of Action: The court made it clear that the 2nd respondent must inform the petitioner of the date and time for the personal hearing. If the petitioner chooses not to avail this opportunity, no further chances will be provided, and the 2nd respondent is free to pass the order in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in income tax proceedings. The set-aside order highlights the significance of considering requests for personal hearings, especially through modern means like video conferencing, ensuring a fair and just assessment process. This case sets a precedent for upholding the rights of taxpayers in the face of administrative decisions that disregard due process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner had fled appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assessment order 31.03.2016 in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. Vide Exhibit P-6 communication dated 26.07.2023, the petitioner was given an opportunity to request for personal hearing to make oral submission in respect of his case through video conferencing facility. The petitioner was directed to submit his request for personal hearing through video conferencing facility through the registered e-mail www.incometax.gov.in by 11.00 am of 28.07.2023. It was also made clear that if no request for personal hearing would be received by the given time and date, the appeal would get finalised as per materials available on record.
2. After receiving the said communication, the petitioner responded vide the communication dated 28.07.2023 seeking hearing through video conferencing. Despite this communication, the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the impugned order in Exhibit P-8 came to be passed.
3. Considering the fact that the petitioner had specifically requested for personal hearing in response to the communication in Exhibit P-6 and the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the the appeal got finalised vide Exhibit P-8 order, I find that there has been violation of the prescribed principles of natural justice in passing the Exhibit P-8 order.
4. In view thereof, the present writ petition is hereby allowed, the impugned order in Exhibit P-8 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to file of the 2 nd respondent to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for which a communication should be sent to the petitioner intimating him the date and time for personal hearing. If the petitioner does not avail this opportunity, it is made clear that no further opportunities shall be afforded to the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent would be free to pass the order in accordance with the law.
With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.
