Nem Chand Ghiya Proprietor M/S Sanjay Industries vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Assn. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 14893 of 2025 NEM CHAND GHIYA PROPRIETOR M/S SANJAY INDUSTRIES Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / ASSN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Ram D. Heda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent / Income Tax Department. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r/w Section 144B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year – 2023 – 24. 02. The petitioner is assailing the impugned order inter alia on the ground that the request for a personal hearing through video conferencing was not considered by the Assessing Officer, hence, an effective opportunity for a hearing was not granted. Hence, the petitioner cannot be relegated to the 1 WP-14893-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11204 Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 01-05-2025 17:04:27 Signature Not Verified

appellate authority. 03. Shri Shantanu Sharma, learnt counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Even the issue of violation of the principle of natural justice is not a complex question of law, which cannot be decided by the appellate authority or ITAT. 04. Admittedly, the order of the Assessing Officer is appealable before the Commissioner of Income Tax, and thereafter, before the ITAT. 05. In the case of Union of India v/s Rajhans Impex (P) Limited reported in (2022) 16 SCC 579, the Apex court has held as under:- ''3. It is not in dispute that the writ petition before the High Court was against the order-in-original (O-I-O) passed by the assessing officer without availing the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Though a specific plea was taken on behalf of the Union of India not to entertain the writ petition against the O-I-O without availing the alternative statutory remedy available to the assessing officer by way of appeal, the High Court has not at all dealt with the same in detail. It cannot be disputed that there are no specific findings given by the High Court that the assessing officer who passed the O-I-O lack total jurisdiction. As such it cannot be said that there was total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the assessing officer in passing the O-I-O. Despite the above, the High Court has entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has entered into the merits of the case though the original writ petitioner did not avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order of O-I-O. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents original writ petitioners has also fairly conceded that in that view of the matter, the respondents herein original writ petitioners may be permitted to file the statutory appeal before the appellate authority against the order-in-original to be filed within a period of four weeks subject to complying with the other requirements while preferring the statutory appeals. However, he 2 WP-14893-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11204 Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 01-05-2025 17:04:27 Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE has requested to make observations that if appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today the same be entertained without raising the issue of limitation and it may be suitably observed that all the contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open. 5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Hig Court dated 9-1-2020 passed in Rajhans Impex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Rajhans Impex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 3435] is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it may be open for the respondents original writ petitioners to prefer the statutory appeal against the order-in- original and it is observed that if the same is filed within a period of four weeks from today the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits subject to complying with other requirements while preferring the appeal such as pre-deposit, etc. however without raising the issue with respect to limitation. All the contentions which may be available in law to the respective parties are kept open.'' 06. The petitioner has not raised any complex question of law which can be decided by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue of violation of the principle of natural justice or any provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules / order can be considered by the appellate authority as well as by the ITAT both. Hence, we do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition, bypassing the alternative remedy. 07. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Ravi

3 WP-14893-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11204 Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 01-05-2025 17:04:27 Signature Not Verified