WALL ROCK DEVELOPERS LLP vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5535/2024HC DelhiDLHC01020957202414 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary grievance was the lack of a personal hearing. However, the respondents presented a notice dated March 6, 2024, which unambiguously scheduled the next hearing for March 11, 2024. The Court found that the petitioner had been duly informed of the date and time of the hearing. Despite this, the petitioner chose not to appear before the Assessing Officer on the designated date. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it. The dismissal was stated to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment itself, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Wall Rock Developers LLP, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated March 13, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential demand notice dated March 13, 2024, under Section 156 of the Act. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity of a personal hearing. The respondents, however, pointed to a notice dated March 6, 2024, which clearly indicated the next date of hearing as March 11, 2024. Despite being duly informed, the petitioner did not appear before the Assessing Officer on the scheduled date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notice dated March 13, 2024, under Section 156 of the Act, are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 143(3) and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The impugned assessment order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Revenue's Contention: The petitioner was duly informed of the hearing date (March 11, 2024) via a notice dated March 6, 2024, but failed to appear before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5535/2024 & CM APPL. 22762/2024

WALL ROCK DEVELOPERS LLP` ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Deepak Kapoor, Mr.Mannat

Singh and Mr.Sanjeev Kumar

Thakur, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Aditya Vikram, Adv for R-

1/UOI with Mr.Ayushman

Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Sr.SC with

Mr.Gibran Naushad and

Ms.Sakashi Shairwal, Jr.SCs

for Revenue.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

14.05.2024

1.

This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordering quashing impugned assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all other subsequent or consequent proceedings including the notice of demand dated 13.03.2024 issued u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Or in alternative (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to reframe the assessment and to provide the Petitioner with copies of the entire material relied upon by the Respondents including Certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act, in respect of any electronic devices from which data was extracted along with Copies of statements of witnesses relied upon by the Respondents for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:39:55

passing the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 u/s 143(3) of Act after granting an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as personal hearing to the Petitioner; and (c) Pass any other order/(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case herein and in the interest of justice."

2.

We had taken note of the contention of the petitioner in our order dated 30 April 2024 that the impugned order had come to be made without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. 3. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions however, draws our attention to the notice of 06 March 2024 and which had in an unambiguous terms provided and disclosed the next date of hearing to be 11 March 2024. 4. As we view the aforesaid notice, it becomes apparent that the petitioner had been duly informed and apprised of the date and time of the hearing. 5. Despite the aforesaid, we are informed by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner chose not to appear before the Assessing Officer on the designated date. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to entertain the writ petition. 7. It shall consequently stand dismissed, alongwith pending application. This order however, shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respective parties.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 14, 2024/MJ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:39:55

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →