Procedural fairness and rules of natural justice are essential in administrative proceedings, and failure to adhere to these principles may result in the setting aside of orders and the direction for rehearing.

JUDGMENT :

Rahul Bharti, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.

2. The disposal of this writ petition shall not detain this Court any further given the nature of issue involved which is whether the manner of passing of impugned order bearing No. F.No: PR.CIT/ITO/JMU/264/2018-19/5472 dated 22.10.2018 by respondent No. 2-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax J&K, Jammu (“ in short Pr. CIT”) is according to procedural fairness and rules of natural justice or not.

3. Before we come to address ourselves to the impugned order, we need to set out the chronology of events which lead to the landing of the matter before the respondent No. 2- Pr. CIT and the impugned order came to be passed.

4. Two purported transactions of the assessment year 2009-2010 in the form of purported payment of Rs. 12,50,072/- against time deposit and a cash deposit of Rs. 16,73,000/- were found related to the petitioner as being the income tax assessee.

5. By reference to the aforesaid particular transactions, on 01.03.2016 a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is said to have been addressed to the petitioner asking for the information regarding the filing of the return of the income and disclosure of such financial transactions for the above said assessment year. This notice is admittedly said to have been addressed to the petitioner at the address available with the noticing issuing authority and which address is G-Gangoo Agency, A-296, Maglic Park Azad pur, Delhi.

6. As there was no response to this notice from the petitioner’s end, another notice dated 29.03.2016 under Section 148 Income Tax Act, 1961, purportedly came to be issued to the petitioner bearing the same address as mentioned above. Even this notice is alleged to have evoked no response from the petitioner’s end in any manner whatsoever which lead to issuance of another notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 accompanied with a questionnaire asking the petitioner to file the details by or before 26.10.2016. This notice too was sent to the petitioner at the very same address and resulted in no response like the previous notices so sent to the petitioner.

7. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was addressed on 31.10.2016 for the petitioner to respond by 15.11.2016 and bearing the same very address which also ended up with the same fate as of no response from the petitioner’s end.

8. Acting at the backdrop of the issuance of the aforesaid notices and course of action at the end of the Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Srinagar, a notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form 7 Rule 15 came to be addressed along with an assessment order by the Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Srinagar, to the petitioner asking for payment of outstanding tax amount of Rs. 24,62,820/-. This notice was also sent to the same very address of the petitioner which being G-Gangoo Agency, A-296, Maglic Park Azad pur, Delhi. Nothing came to be heard from the petitioner’s end in reference to the notice along with demand and assessment order so sent.

9. The culmination of the aforesaid course of action came to take place when an Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Srinagar came to address a notice bearing No. ITO/W-2/SDR/DCR-19/2017-18 dated 17.01.2017 to the petitioner to show cause why a penalty be not levied under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an overdue of payment of Rs.24,62,818/-. The petitioner was called upon to respond by 30.01.2018. It may be a matter of a typing error with respect to the date given in the notice dated 17.01.2017 for the petitioner to appear before Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Srinagar on 30.01.2018. This time, this particular notice was sent to the petitioner at a new address which is C-83, Block-C, Mahendru Enclave Delhi-110009. This notice came to land in the hands of the petitioner.

10. It is against this notice that the petitioner came forward with presentation of a petition under section 264 sent