ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by an Order dated 12 March 2024 (received by the Petitioner on 11 October 2024) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short), Pune Bench under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short).

3. The substantive prayer in the petition reads thus :-

“A. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 12"‘ March 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1;”

A) Issue Before the Court:

4. The primary issue that falls for consideration revolves around the legality and validity of impugned order of ITAT dated 12 March 2024 alleged to be passed without hearing the petitioner and/or his representative and without considering the written submissions filed by the petitioner, in contravention of the well settled jurisprudential principles of natural justice.

(B) Factual Matrix:

The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present proceedings are :-

5. The petitioner assessee in the present case is a 64 years old retired serviceman, who earned income primarily from salary for the relevant assessment year being Assessment Year 2019-2020 (“A.Y. 2019-20” in short). He was then an employee of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (“Pfizer Healthcare” for short) posted at Aurangabad from where he derived his salary income.

6. Respondent no. 1/ITAT which passed the impugned order dated 12 March 2024 under section 254(1) of the IT Act ought not to have been made a party. Respondent no. 2 is the jurisdictional assessing officer. Respondent no. 3 is the Union of India.

7. The petitioner filed his original income tax returns (“ITR” for short) for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 1 August 2019 declaring a total income of Rs.57,84,740/-. The petitioner had claimed relief under section 89(1) of the IT Act for an amount of Rs.13,22,187/-. Subsequently, the petitioner’s case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assessed Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Pursuant thereto, a notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner on 31 March 2021, followed by notice dated 16 August 2021 issued under section 142(1) of the IT Act, calling for details and documents. In response to such notices, the petitioner submitted copies of computation of income, Form 26AS, Form 16, Form 10E along with other supporting documents.

8. Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated 16 September 2021 to the petitioner directing him to furnish his reply on or before 19 September 2021. The petitioner filed his submissions/reply dated 16 September 2021 to the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order issued by respondent no. 2. The petitioner also requested for the grant of a personal hearing through video conferencing, which was so granted on 23 September 2021.

9. According to the petitioner the relief claimed by him under section 89(1) of the IT Act warranted consideration, as such amount was a salary advance, justifying such relief. However, the petitioner during the course of assessment proceedings withdrew such relief as claimed under section 89(1) and alternatively claimed receipts of Ex-Gratia and other incentives as capital receipts. This was with reference to the amounts received from his employer, i.e., Pfizer Healthcare on account of closure of its plant at Aurangabad and in terms of the settlement to all permanent employees under the financial scheme for employees of Aurangabad 2019, dated 9 January 2019.

10. Respondent no. 2 proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 29 September 2021 under section 143(1) read with section 144B of t