Case Law Details
Shoreline Development Ltd Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Facts- The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting to quash the impugned order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner mainly alleges that though the several hearing notices were issued by the respondents, and all the times, where the petitioner requested for grant of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, however, the opportunity of personal hearing to appear through Video Conferencing has not been provided to the petitioner. Without providing opportunity of the personal hearing to the petitioner, the present impugned order has been passed. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set-aside.
Conclusion- Held that if any order is passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, it is clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. When the respondent intended to pass orders against the petitioner, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide an opportunity of the personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as the petitioner opted to appear through Video Conferencing to present his case. When the Video Conferencing option was opted by the petitioner, such option was not provided by the respondent. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice, and on this score alone, the present impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 19.06.2024 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065804119(1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, an order of assessment was passed on 27.12.2017 in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-2016 in pursuance to the original return of income filed in terms of Section 139 of the Act on 17.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the first respondent in terms of Section 246A of the Act through the electronic mode on 27.01.2018. Thereafter, the impugned order
2.1. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the several hearing notices were issued by the respondents, and all the times, where the petitioner requested for grant of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, however, the opportunity of personal hearing to appear through Video Conferencing has not been provided to the petitioner. Without providing opportunity of the personal hearing to the petitioner, the present impugned order has been passed. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set-aside.
3. Mr. V. Mahalingam, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that, the opportunity of personal hearing through Video Conferencing has not been provided to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed by this Court and the same shall be complied with by the respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. In the present case, the first respondent provided an option to opt for personal hearing either in person or through Video Conferencing. The petitioner has opted for personal hearing through Video Conferencing. However, the respondents have failed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to appear through Video Conferencing to present the case. Without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 19.06.2024.
6. If any order is passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, it is clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. When the respondent intended to pass orders against the petitioner, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide an opportunity of the personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as the petitioner opted to appear through Video Conferencing to present his case. When the Video Conferencing option was opted by the petitioner, such option was not provided by the respondent. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice, and on this score alone, the present impugned order is liable to be set-aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing through Video Conferencing. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Author Bio
