NAUSHA AKBAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2023/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01003744202529 January 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing before the first respondent-Appellate Authority when the impugned order was passed. It was noted that the petitioner had provided the email address 'hebbar1909@yahoo.in' in Form 35, but the Appellate Authority sent notices to 'ganesh.2500@yahoo.com'. The Court found this to be an admitted fact. The judgment emphasized that when a substantial right of a party is involved and they are entitled to a personal hearing, providing such an opportunity is mandatory. Consequently, since the petitioner was denied a hearing, the matter required reconsideration by the Appellate Authority. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 29.12.2023, and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration of the appeal after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was also permitted to file additional documents or raise additional grounds in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nausha Akbar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner had appealed against an assessment order dated 13.09.2022. The petitioner contended that notices for the appeal hearing were sent to an incorrect email address (ganesh.2500@yahoo.com) instead of the one provided in the appeal form (hebbar1909@yahoo.in), thus denying her an opportunity for a hearing. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, could not dispute the fact that notices were sent to a different email address.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.12.2023, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that notices of hearing were sent to an email address not provided by her, resulting in her absence from the hearing and a lack of opportunity to present her case. She sought to quash the impugned order and obtain a direction to be permitted to file additional grounds, evidence, and submissions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel was unable to dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the incorrect email address used for sending notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4094 WP No. 2023 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

NAUSHA AKBAR W/O AKBAR HASSAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NH 66, S.M. GARDEN, MOOLOOR UCHILA, UDUPI - 574 114 PRESENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: D.NO.3-22-1-5-1B S M ORCHID, VTC, MULOOR UCHILA, UDUPI-574 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADV.)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (NAFAC) DELHI NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, UDUPI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAPLE ROAD, ADDIUDUPI, AMBALAPADI (PO) UDUPI - 576 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH & SRI M. DILIP, ADVS.)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4094 WP No. 2023 of 2025

PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 29.12.2023 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 VIDE DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1059187606(1) TO THE EXTENT HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-assessee is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 29.12.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059187606(1) dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to file additional grounds of appeal, additional evidence, written submissions and documents in support of his case.

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Annamalai S for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh for respondents- Revenue, who has taken notice. Perused the writ petition papers.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4094 WP No. 2023 of 2025

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner aggrieved by the assessment order dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure-B) filed an appeal before the first respondent in terms of Annexure-C with email address of hebbar1909@yahoo.in for the purpose of service of notice. Learned counsel would submit that under Annexure-D, the petitioner had indicated the email address as stated above. It is his specific contention of that notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to a different email address which do not belong to the petitioner or his Chartered Accountant. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to Annexure-E and E1/notices which were addressed to email address i.e., ganesh.2500@yahoo .com. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing before the Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for an opportunity to put forth petitioner’s case before the first respondent- Appellate Authority, by setting aside the impugned appellate order at Annexure-A dated 29.12.2023.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4094 WP No. 2023 of 2025

4.

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh is not in a position to dispute the fact of sending notice to a different email address than the email address mentioned in Form 35 at Annexure-C.

5.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the considered view that the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing before the first respondent-Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 29.12.2023. Admittedly, in Form 35 Appeal Format, the petitioner had mentioned email address as hebbar1909@yahoo.in whereas notices at Annexures-E and E1 of the Appellate Authority are addressed to a different email address i.e. ganesh.2500@yahoo .com.

6.

Admittedly, the notice of the Appellate Authority was sent to a different email address. In that circumstance, the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth his case before the first respondent-Appellate Authority. When the substantial right of a party is involved and when he is

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:4094 WP No. 2023 of 2025

entitled for personal hearing in the appeal, providing opportunity of hearing is a must.

7.

Since the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing before the first respondent-Appellate Authority, the matter requires reconsideration by the first respondent-Appellate Authority. However, it is open for the petitioner to file additional documents or raise additional grounds if any, in the meanwhile.

8.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure-A) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent-Appellate Authority to consider afresh the appeal of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

MPK CT:bms

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →