Prashant Kumar Yadav vs. Additional/Jointdeputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer National Faceless As

PDF · subscribers
WP/9277/2022HC Madhya Pradesh16 August 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU4 pages
For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order could not be entertained on the ground of non-affording an opportunity of hearing or violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that a reply was filed by the petitioner, and the impugned order was passed after consideration of that reply, thus it could not be said that no opportunity of hearing was given. Regarding the contention that the grounds in the reply were not considered, the court held that if an order ignores one or more grounds taken in the reply, it is not a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Such an order can be assailed through the alternative remedy of appeal. The court noted that the petition was filed within 20 days of the assessment order and directed that if the petitioner files a statutory appeal within a further period of 30 days, it shall be decided on merits, ignoring the delay. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, declining interference.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prashant Kumar Yadav, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 30, 2022, passed by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner's grievance was that the assessment order was passed without providing a due opportunity of hearing and without considering the objections and submissions made in his reply dated March 27, 2022, to a show cause notice dated March 26, 2022. The petitioner argued that despite an alternative remedy, the order suffered from grave legal errors and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the order was passed after due opportunity and that an alternative remedy was available, praying for dismissal of the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, contrary to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering his detailed reply and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on Tin Box Co. vs. CIT, Milestone Brandcom Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, CCTEB India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, and Ketan Ribbons Pvt. Ltd vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the order was passed after giving due opportunity of hearing and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Reliance was placed on National Faceless Assessment Centre vs. Mantra Industries Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 16th OF AUGUST, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 9277 of 2022 Between:- PRASHANT KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI KAILASH NARAYAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SUBHASH CHOWK MAIN ROAD, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE-ADVOCATE) AND 1. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE THROUGH E ASSESSMENT CENTRE 2ND FLOOR E RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM DELHI (DELHI) 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER KATNI WARD 1, KATNI INCOME TAX OFFICER JABALPUR ROAD KATNI M.P (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL-ADVOCATE) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL passed the following: ORDER This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Income Tax Department. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that upon issuance of show cause 1 Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 8/18/2022 5:31:08 PM Signature Not Verified notice dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 27.03.2022 (Annexure P-10), making several objections/submissions mentioned therein, but the authority without giving due opportunity of hearing and without considering the objections/submissions made in the reply, passed the impugned order on 30.03.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving due opportunity of hearing and without considering the submissions made by the petitioner by filing detailed reply. He further submits that although there is alternative remedy, but as the order suffers from grave legal errors and was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decisions in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC); Milestone Brandcom Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Another (2022) 441 ITR 470 (Bom); CCTEB India (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 6 NYPCTR 497 (Del) and Ketan Ribbons Pvt. Ltd vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C)5846/2021 & CM No.18310/2021 dated 18th May, 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents by filing reply to the petition, supports the impugned order on the ground that the order has been passed after giving due opportunity of hearing and the petitioner is having alternative remedy and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. He also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Faceless Assessment Centre vs. Mantra Industries Ltd. (2022) 137 taxmann.com 210 (SC). 2 Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 8/18/2022 5:31:08 PM Signature Not Verified (SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From bare perusal of record it is apparent that the show cause notice was issued on 26.03.2022 and in pursuance to which reply was filed by the petitioner on 27.03.2022. As the petitioner had already filed reply and the impugned order was passed after consideration of the reply, therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As such the petition cannot be entertained on the ground of non-affording an opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. 8. As regards the other contention of the petitioner that the authority has not considered the grounds taken in the reply, also cannot be a tenable ground because it is well settled that if the order has been passed ignoring one or more grounds taken in the reply, the same cannot be a ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and such order can be assailed by way of alternative remedy of appeal provided under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. As the present petition was filed on 20.04.2022, i.e. within 20 days from the date of passing the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, therefore, if the petitioner files the statutory appeal within a further period of 30 days, the same shall be decided by the authority on merits, ignoring the question of delay in filing the appeal. 10. With the aforesaid observation, declining interference in the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed off. ss

3 Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 8/18/2022 5:31:08 PM Signature Not Verified 4 Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 8/18/2022 5:31:08 PM Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 292B

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →