Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.NO.104532/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA PUJER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, #3537, RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHIMJI BHAI BUILDING,
CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD,
BELAGAVI – 590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED EX PART ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/021-22/1036019143(1), PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C.
: 2 : THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing and the said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement.
In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows:
“The assessee has submitted reply. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 28.09.2021 was issued to the assessee. In response to show cause notice dated 28.09.2021, the assessee has not furnished any written submission and has not enclosed any supporting documents/ written reply objecting to the proposed variation. He has simply clicked the option for video conferencing button available against the show cause notice. Hence request for video conferencing was rejected accordingly. The reply filed by the assessee has been examined and the same is found not acceptable and the finding are as under”.
The order does not indicate that an enquiry was conducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. This position is also not disputed by Sri. Y. R. Raviraj.
It is to be noticed here that the period mentioned in the impugned order relates to the period when the entire nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact
: 3 : that the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity of hearing, in my view, it would be just necessary to grant them an opportunity of hearing.
I therefore, quash the impugned orders and direct the assessing authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
It is needless to state that all the contentions available to the petitioner can be raise before the Assessing Authority.
Sd/- JUDGE SSP