MANOJ KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21296/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097355202106 February 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply amounts to not affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the department admitted a reply was filed on 27.09.2021, and the petitioner also placed on record a reply dated 27.09.2021. Even if the reply appeared blank on the e-portal due to a glitch, it could not be concluded that the petitioner had nothing to say. The principle applied is that a party must be given a fair hearing, and their submissions must be considered. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the reply dated 27.09.2021 and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, is challenging an assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for the assessment year 2019-20. This order was passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 23.09.2021. The petitioner claims to have filed a reply on 27.09.2021, which is on record as Annexure P-8. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the impugned order observed that a blank reply dated 27.09.2021 was furnished on the portal, and consequently, concluded that the assessee had nothing to say. The petitioner contends that the AO admitted a reply was filed on 27.09.2021, and the reply on record is also dated 27.09.2021. The discrepancy of it appearing blank on the e-portal is attributed to a technical glitch.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.09.2021, passed for assessment year 2019-20, is valid when the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had nothing to say, despite the assessee having filed a reply dated 27.09.2021, which was allegedly reflected as blank on the e-portal due to a technical glitch? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and proper consideration of submissions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the non-consideration of their filed reply, even if it appeared blank on the portal due to a technical issue, amounts to a denial of an opportunity of hearing. They rely on the fact that both the department's admission and the petitioner's record confirm a reply was filed on the specified date. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. It only notes the observation made by the AO in the impugned order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201

CWP-21296-2021 (O&M) Date of decision:- 06.02.2023 MANOJ KUMAR .... Petitioner VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PATIALA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral) Short question for consideration in the present writ petition is that while passing the impugned order dated 30.09.2021, Annexure P-10, for the assessment year 2019-20, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.09.2021, the petitioner had filed the reply, Annexure P-8 but while passing the assessment order, it has been observed that a blank reply dated 27.09.2021 has been furnished on the portal and the assessee has nothing to say in this matter. Once the department has admitted that the reply was filed which was dated 27.09.2021 and the reply placed on record by the petitioner Annexure-8 is also dated 27.09.2021, even if the reply was POOJA SAINI 2023.02.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-21296-2021 (O&M) -2- reflected blank on the e-portal, it cannot be observed that the petitioner has nothing to say as the reply was filed by him on the portal and on account of some glitch it showed to be blank. Since non-consideration of the reply amounts to not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the above, present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 30.09.2021, Annexure P-10 is set aside and the matter is being remanded back to the Assessing Officer, to consider the reply dated 27.09.2021, Annexure P-8 and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 06.02.2023

pooja saini ( MANISHA BATRA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2023.02.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →