By Sri. Y v. Raviraj, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1/[tn]DAY OF DECEMBER 27071 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA%W.P.NO.104532/2021 (TIT) BETWEEN SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA PUJER,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,#3537, RISALDAR GALLI,BELAGAVI. _. PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) ANI 1.GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI.NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI.2DTHE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, KHIMJI BHAI BUILDING, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, BELAGAVI -— 590 OOL.OF INCOME TAX, KHIMJI BHAI BUILDING, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, BELAGAVI -— 590 OOL. —_ RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2276 & 227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OFCERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE OF QUASHING THEIMPUGNED|EX|PARTASSESSMENTORDERPASSED|BYRESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED IN DIN AND|ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/021-22/1036019143(1), PASSEDBY RESPONDENT NO.1, IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C. 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 tnat they were not granted an opportunity of nearing and the)said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement. 2.In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows: “TheGSSCSSCEChas|submittedreply.Subsequently, snow 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 enclosedany supporting qocuments/ written reply objecting to the proposed variation. He nas simply clicked tne)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”, _ 3.Tne order does not indicate that an enquiry was conducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner.|This position is also not disputed Dy Sri. Y. R. Raviraj. 4It is to be noticed nere that the period mentionedin the impugned order relates to the period when the entire|nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact| 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. 5.I therefore, quash the impugned orders and directthe assessing authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresn order. | Writ petition is accordingly allowed. | It is needless to state tnat all the contentions available|to the petitioner can be raise before the Assessing Authority. SSP| Sd/-—JUDGE.