Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur Aaykar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur

Digitallysigned byAJAY KUMARDWIVEDIDate:2025.06.2714:32:00+0530 2025:CGHC:28285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 80 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Hiralal Jain Aged About 69 Years R/o Navkaar Parisar, Pulgaon Naka, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh, 491001. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur Aaykar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003 3 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2(1) Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai- 490001 Distt.- Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondents. For Petitioner :Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents :Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Counsel for the respondent.Chaudhari, Counsel for the respondent. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the assessment order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the respondent/Department under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act of 1961". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee before passing the assessment order and the same has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and without following the Standard Operating Procedure provided under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Act 1961. He further submits that the petitioner has duly filed his return for the assessment year 2023-24 electronically on 12.09.2023. Subsequently, the respondent/Department has issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act 1961 on 01.08.2024 and the petitioner herein has filed its reply on 05.08.2024. Thereafter, the second notice was issued by the Department on 13.03.2025 wherein response was sought from the petitioner by 17:00 hours of 15.03.2025 in a very short span. He submits that between 13.03.2025 and 16.03.2025, the office was closed due to Holi Festival and Sunday. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his response on 17.05.2025, however, the same was not taken into consideration by the Department. Learned counsel submits that by fixing a short time limit the Department has deprived the petitioner from fair opportunity of hearing which is directly in violation of principle of natural justice. He submits that the Department ought to have granted reasonable time to file the response. In support of his contention, he places reliance in the cases of Gemini Film Circuit Vs.the Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant1Commissioner of Income Tax decided by the High Court of Madras; Monika Jaiswal Vs. Union of India2 and others decided by the High Court of Calcutta; Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Income Tax Officer3 decided by the High Court of Bombay; and in the case of Rashmi Lakhotia Vs. Union of India and Ors4 passed by this Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the assessment order is not sustainable and same deserves to be quashed and petitioner is entitled for reasonable opportunity of hearing in view of principle of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue would support the impugned order of assessment. He also submits that against the impugned order, effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, is available to the petitioner.support the impugned order of assessment. He also submits that against the impugned order, effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, is available to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.annexed with the petition carefully. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue would support the impugned order of assessment. He also submits that against the impugned order, effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, is available to the petitioner.support the impugned order of assessment. He also submits that against the impugned order, effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, is available to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.annexed with the petition carefully. 5. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, before the assessment order was passed on 24.03.2025, the second notice was issued by the Department on 13.03.2025 wherein response was sought from the petitioner by 17:00 hours of 15.03.2025 i.e. two days which is a very short time for filing the response. It is also undisputed at the bar that the date of 14.03.2025 was declared as Holiday on the occasion of Holi Festival.passed on 24.03.2025, the second notice was issued by the Department on 13.03.2025 wherein response was sought from the petitioner by 17:00 hours of 15.03.2025 i.e. two days which is a very short time for filing the response. It is also undisputed at the bar that the date of 14.03.2025 was declared as Holiday on the occasion of Holi Festival. 6. In the similar nature of facts, in the matter of Gemini Film Circuit (Supra), when five days time was stipulated by the Department for filing reply, the High Court of Madaras observing that the petitioner was deprived from the opportunity of personal hearing, set-aside the (Supra), when five days time was stipulated by the Department for filing reply, the High Court of Madaras observing that the petitioner was deprived from the opportunity of personal hearing, set-aside the 2MANU/WB/1717/2024: [2024]466 ITR 488(Cal)3MANU/MH/4989/2024 : 2024:BHC-S:12330-DB3MANU/MH/4989/2024 : 2024:BHC-S:12330-DB 4MANU/CG/1393/2022 : [2023]456ITR320(Chhattisgarh) {WPT No. 80 of 2025} impugned order of assessment and directed to pass fresh order after providing sufficient opportunity of filing reply/objection. 7. Further, in Monika Jaiswal (Supra), the High Court of Calcutta observed that from the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) circulated by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide letter dated 3rd August, 2022, it would transpire that in terms of Paragraph No.1.3, Faceless Assessment Unit is required to afford response time of 7 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice, thereby, as per said SOP 7 days may be curtailed keeping in view of the limitation date for completing the assessment. that from the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) circulated by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide letter dated 3rd August, 2022, it would transpire that in terms of Paragraph No.1.3, Faceless Assessment Unit is required to afford response time of 7 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice, thereby, as per said SOP 7 days may be curtailed keeping in view of the limitation date for completing the assessment. 8. Likewise, in the matter of Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd. (Supra), the High Court of Bombay has also taken the similar view. In that case only, two days time was given at the first instance and thereafter time was extended by more 2 days which was held to be not sufficient and it was observed that the Authority has arbitrarily exercised its jurisdiction by granting extension of only 2 days time and granted opportunity to the assessee for filing response by setting aside the order of assessment. Ltd. (Supra), the High Court of Bombay has also taken the similar view. In that case only, two days time was given at the first instance and thereafter time was extended by more 2 days which was held to be not sufficient and it was observed that the Authority has arbitrarily exercised its jurisdiction by granting extension of only 2 days time and granted opportunity to the assessee for filing response by setting aside the order of assessment. 9. This Court has also taken the similar view while considering the case of Rashmi Lakhotia(Supra) wherein it was observed that when the Act itself provides a procedure for effective hearing and from the facts and circumstances of the case, if it appears that principle of natural justice is violated and no reasonable opportunity is afforded, order passed by the Assessment Authority is not justifiable.Rashmi Lakhotia(Supra) wherein it was observed that when the Act itself provides a procedure for effective hearing and from the facts and circumstances of the case, if it appears that principle of natural justice is violated and no reasonable opportunity is afforded, order passed by the Assessment Authority is not justifiable. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the law laid down by the various High Courts and considering the manner in which proceeding has been conducted by the respondent/Department before passing the assessment order, this Court is of the view that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the assessee particularly by providing the dates between Holi festival. Hence, this Court is of the view that the assessment order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.the various High Courts and considering the manner in which proceeding has been conducted by the respondent/Department before passing the assessment order, this Court is of the view that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the assessee particularly by providing the dates between Holi festival. Hence, this Court is of the view that the assessment order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 11. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2025 is set-aside. The respondent/Authority is directed to restore the matter and to take suitable steps for rehearing of the case by providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the order has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Authority, no fixed date is given by this Court for presence of the parties.aside. The respondent/Authority is directed to restore the matter and to take suitable steps for rehearing of the case by providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the order has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Authority, no fixed date is given by this Court for presence of the parties. 12. It is also expected from the assessing Authority that if any fresh notice is issued to the assessee, then sufficient time may be provided for filing response/reply. Thereafter, the Authority shall pass fresh assessment order.issued to the assessee, then sufficient time may be provided for filing response/reply. Thereafter, the Authority shall pass fresh assessment order. 13. It is made clear that this Court while passing this order has not entered into the merits of the assessment made by the assessing Authority and the Authority would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision after hearing the assessee/petitioner.into the merits of the assessment made by the assessing Authority and the Authority would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision after hearing the assessee/petitioner. 14. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Ajay Judge