Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ABDUL SALAM KUNIYIL – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges an order issued without a hearing, violating natural justice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel argues for breach of statutory protocols in the issuance of the tax order. (Para 3) |
| 3. the court affirms the necessity of a hearing as required by statute. (Para 4) |
| 4. ruling issued to set aside the order and mandate a reconsideration with a hearing. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order dated 24.10.2024 issued by the respondent.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that, he was not granted an opportunity of hearing, despite specific request in that behalf. It was also submitted that, even after taking note of the specific request of the petitioner for granting an opportunity of hearing, the respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P1 order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act , 1961, without granting any opportunity of hearing.
3. I have heard Sri.Aivan Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that, an opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Section 250 (2) of the Act, has
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
