SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward-34 (1) New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 17459 of 2022 & CM Appls. 55656-57 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022




Failure to grant a personal hearing by the Assessing Officer violates principles of natural justice, necessitating the annulment of the assessment order.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 148A(d) - Petition against order dated 19.07.2022 concerning Assessment Year 2013-14 - Petitioner claimed denial of personal hearing, contesting the assessment of income below Rs.50,00,000/- - Court emphasized the necessity of a personal hearing before the Assessing Officer (Paras 4, 5, 6).

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to a fair hearing - The court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to grant a personal hearing necessitates setting aside the impugned order and notice (Paras 5, 6).

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed against an Income Tax assessment order where the petitioner claimed that they were entitled to a personal hearing, which was not provided, and argued that the income in question was below the prescribed threshold.

Findings of Court:
The impugned assessment order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to conduct a de novo exercise after granting a personal hearing (Paras 6, 7).

Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the petitioner to a personal hearing and compliance with the statutory prerequisites under Section 149 of the Act (Paras 5, 6).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the denial of a personal hearing is a breach of the principles of natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of the order and requiring the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case (Paras 6, 7).

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):

CM No.55657/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 17459/2022 & CM No.55656/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice.

2.1. Mr Sanjay Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

3. In view of the order that we intend to pass, Mr Kumar says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed at this stage. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] and the consequent notice of even date, i.e., 19.07.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act, concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

5. Inter alia, one of the grievances of the petitioner is that despite having asked for a personal hearing, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not grant a hearing and proceeded to pass the impugned order in the matter.

5.1 Besides this, it is also the case of the petitioner that the income chargeable to tax, which the respondents/revenue claim has escaped assessment, is below Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore, in this particular case, the prerequisites provided under Section 149 of the Act are not fulfilled.

6. Having regard to the fact that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, the aforementioned impugned order and notice are set aside.

7. The AO is given liberty to carry out a de novo exercise.

7.1. Before the AO embarks on that route, he/she shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and/or his authorized representative.

7.2. The AO will also furnish the underlying material/information available with him/her, if not already furnished, to the petitioner.

7.3. The AO will issue notice to the petitioner fixing the date and time of hearing.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

9. The parties will act, based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top