ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY (P) LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34046/2023HC KeralaKLHC01076230202303 November 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) in Exhibit P-8 was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing through video conferencing in response to the communication from the 2nd respondent. However, this opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner, and the appeal was finalized. Consequently, the impugned order (Exhibit P-8) was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal afresh after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The 2nd respondent was directed to send a communication to the petitioner intimating the date and time for personal hearing. It was clarified that if the petitioner fails to avail this opportunity, no further opportunities would be granted, and the 2nd respondent would be free to pass an order in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [2nd respondent] issued a communication (Exhibit P-6) on July 26, 2023, offering an opportunity for a personal hearing via video conferencing, to be requested by July 28, 2023. The petitioner responded on July 28, 2023, requesting a video conference hearing. Despite this request, the petitioner was not granted a hearing, and an order (Exhibit P-8) was passed. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) is in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee (petitioner) contended that they had specifically requested a personal hearing through video conferencing in response to the communication from the 2nd respondent. Despite this clear request, the hearing was not provided, and the appeal was finalized. This, according to the assessee, constitutes a violation of natural justice. The revenue (respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. The judgment notes that the appeal was finalized without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, despite the petitioner's request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34046 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY (P) LTD., KP 11/847, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. BOBBY M. JACOB, PIN – 683562. BY ADVS. SRI. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI. AIBEL MATHEW SIBY SRI. ISAAC THOMAS SRI. JOHN VITHAYATHIL SRI. ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SRI. P. G. CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SRI. SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I. S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 4 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 110001. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH – SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34046 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34046 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2023

JUDGMENT

1.

The petitioner had filed appeal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assessment order 31.03.2016 in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. Vide Exhibit P-6 communication dated 26.07.2023, the petitioner was given an opportunity to request for personal hearing to make oral submission in respect of his case through video conferencing facility. The petitioner was directed to submit his request for personal hearing through video conferencing facility through the registered e-mail www.incometax.gov.in by 11.00 am of 28.07.2023. It was also made clear that if no request for personal hearing would be received by the given time and date, the appeal would get finalised as per materials available on record.

2.

After receiving the said communication, the petitioner responded vide the communication dated 28.07.2023 seeking hearing through video conferencing. Despite this communication, the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the impugned order in Exhibit P-8 came to be passed.

WP(C) NO. 34046 OF 2023 3

3.

Considering the fact that the petitioner had specifically requested for personal hearing in response to the communication in Exhibit P-6 and the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing and the the appeal got finalised vide Exhibit P-8 order, I find that there has been violation of the prescribed principles of natural justice in passing the Exhibit P-8 order.

4.

In view thereof, the present writ petition is hereby allowed, the impugned order in Exhibit P-8 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to file of the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for which a communication should be sent to the petitioner intimating him the date and time for personal hearing. If the petitioner does not avail this opportunity, it is made clear that no further opportunities shall be afforded to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent would be free to pass the order in accordance with the law. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP(C) NO. 34046 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34046/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL TOGETHER WITH THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 15.06.2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 20/2016 DATED 26.05.2016 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT CBDT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE TOGETHER WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.06.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RESPONSE DATED 18.7.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE/ADJOURNMENT DATED 26.07.2023 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →