M/S. ALCON DEVELOPERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. NANDA SADASSIVA NAIQUE COUNTO. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1), PANAJI.

TXA/42/2015HC BombayHCBM05001552201528 July 2015Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K. L. WADANE,F. M. REIS6 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23.01.2015 was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the assessee was not given an opportunity to advance oral arguments. The letter dated 08.01.2015, explaining the counsel's absence, was not examined or placed before the Tribunal when passing the order. The Court emphasized that not providing an adequate hearing vitiates an order. Furthermore, the contentions raised in the written submissions filed by the assessee were also not duly noted or considered. Relying on its own judgment in Mrs. Celina Almeida vs. Minister of Urban Development & Ors., which in turn relied on Apex Court judgments, the Court reiterated the importance of adequate hearing, stating that written submissions are not a substitute for oral arguments. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The ITAT was directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the parties. As a condition for further hearing, the assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent, to be deposited before the CIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Alcon Developers, appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The High Court of Bombay at Goa admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law concerning the breach of natural justice. The assessee's counsel stated he would withdraw a recall application filed before the ITAT. The High Court then proceeded to hear the appeal on merits, focusing solely on the procedural aspect. The assessee contended that the ITAT passed its order without affording them an adequate opportunity for oral arguments, despite receiving a faxed letter from their counsel explaining his inability to attend due to matters before the Karnataka High Court. The assessee also claimed written submissions were not considered. The revenue argued that the assessee was given opportunities and was negligent in not appearing or presenting their counsel's letter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stands vitiated for not complying with the principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: - The ITAT passed its order dated 23.01.2015 without providing an adequate opportunity for oral arguments, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. - A letter dated 09.01.2015 was faxed to the ITAT explaining the counsel's inability to attend the hearing on 12.01.2015 due to engagements before the Karnataka High Court, but this letter was not considered. - Written submissions filed by the assessee were also not considered by the ITAT. - Relied on the judgment in Mrs. Celina Almeida vs. Minister of Urban Development & Ors. for the proposition that oral submissions are essential and their absence vitiates an order. Revenue's contentions: - The ITAT rightly examined the merits and granted relief to the respondent (revenue). - The assessee was given opportunities to advance submissions, and adjournments were previously granted. - On the hearing date, no one appeared for the assessee to present the counsel's letter. - The ITAT rightly exercised its discretion in refusing further time due to the assessee's negligence. - The substantial question of law should be answered in favour of the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, to recall the impugned Order within one

(i)

The impugned Order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, is quashed and set aside. (ii)

Income Tax Appeal no. 377/PNJ/2013 is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji. (iii)

The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the Appeal afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv)

Cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the Respondent as condition precedent which by consent to be deposited before the CIT. (v)

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. K. L. WADANE, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →