SUNITA SRIVASTAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers

CWP/11128/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01061723202426 August 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 29.03.2024 was passed without granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order. The Court granted liberty to the respondents (revenue) to pass a fresh assessment order, but only after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the law. The appeal was disposed of based on this consensus.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunita Sriv, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.03.2024. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, fairly stated that the assessment order was passed without providing the assessee with a chance to be heard. Both parties agreed that the assessment order should be set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after adhering to the principles of natural justice and the law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 29.03.2024 is liable to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the impugned assessment order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

140 140 140 140 IN IN IN IN SUNITA SRIV SUNITA SRIV SUNITA SRIV SUNITA SRIV INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO Present : M

(T M M for

** DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

At states that sin 29.03.2024 (A petitioner, suc fresh assessme law.

In the parties, the liberty to the r principles of na

26.

08 26.08 26.08 26.08.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

VASTAV VASTAV VASTAV VASTAVA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFI X OFFI X OFFI X OFFICER AND OTHERS ER AND OTHERS ER AND OTHERS ER AND OTHERS ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate, for Through Video Conferencing) Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun r the respondents. *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) t the outset, learned counsel for nce before passing of the imp Annexure P1), no opportunity o ch order be set aside with liber nt order for the assessment year he afore statement satisfies learn n the light of the afore consensus e impugned assessment order da respondents to pass a fresh ord atural justice and in accordance w isposed of.

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-11128 11128 11128 11128-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 26.08. 26.08. 26.08. 26.08.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH the petitioner. nsel with nsel, r the respondents-revenue fairly pugned assessment order dated of hearing was granted to the rty to the respondents to pass a r in question, in accordance with ned counsel for the petitioner. between the learned counsel for ted 29.03.2024 is set aside with der but only after following the with law. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No y d e a h r h e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.01 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →