Signature Not Verifiedsigned By: Sweta Sahusigning Time: 8/18/20225:31:08 Pm v. Signature Not Verifiedsigned By: Sweta Sahusigning Time: 8/18/20225:31:08 Pm

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 16[th] OF AUGUST, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 9277 of 2022 Between:-PRASHANT KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI KAILASHNARAYAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SUBHASHCHOWK MAIN ROAD, KATNI (MADHYAPRADESH) (BY SHRI SAPAN USRETHE-ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER AND1.ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAXOFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENTCENTRE THROUGH E ASSESSMENT CENTRE2ND FLOOR E RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUMDELHI (DELHI)2.INCOME TAX OFFICER KATNI WARD 1, KATNIINCOME TAX OFFICER JABALPUR ROAD KATNIM.P (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI SANJAY LAL-ADVOCATE) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL passed the following: ORDER This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-1),passed by the Income Tax Department. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that upon issuance of show cause notice dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), petitioner submitted reply to the showcause notice on 27.03.2022 (Annexure P-10), making severalobjections/submissions mentioned therein, but the authority without giving dueopportunity of hearing and without considering the objections/submissionsmade in the reply, passed the impugned order on 30.03.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugnedorder has been passed without giving due opportunity of hearing and withoutconsidering the submissions made by the petitioner by filing detailed reply. Hefurther submits that although there is alternative remedy, but as the order suffersfrom grave legal errors and was passed in violation of principles of naturaljustice, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitionerplaced reliance on decisions in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC); Milestone Brandcom Pvt. Ltd. vs.National Faceless Assessment Centre and Another (2022) 441 ITR 470(Bom); CCTEB India (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(2022) 6 NYPCTR 497 (Del) and Ketan Ribbons Pvt. Ltd vs. NationalFaceless Assessment Centre Delhi passed by High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in W.P.(C)5846/2021 & CM No.18310/2021 dated 18th May, 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents by filing reply to the petition,supports the impugned order on the ground that the order has been passed aftergiving due opportunity of hearing and the petitioner is having alternative remedyand prays for dismissal of this writ petition. He also placed reliance on thedecision of Supreme Court in the case of National Faceless AssessmentCentre vs. Mantra Industries Ltd. (2022) 137 taxmann.com 210 (SC). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From bare perusal of record it is apparent that the show cause notice was issued on 26.03.2022 and in pursuance to which reply was filed bythe petitioner on 27.03.2022. As the petitioner had already filed reply and theimpugned order was passed after consideration of the reply, therefore, it cannotbe said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As such thepetition cannot be entertained on the ground of non-affording an opportunity ofhearing and violation of principles of natural justice. 8. As regards the other contention of the petitioner that the authority 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From bare perusal of record it is apparent that the show cause notice was issued on 26.03.2022 and in pursuance to which reply was filed bythe petitioner on 27.03.2022. As the petitioner had already filed reply and theimpugned order was passed after consideration of the reply, therefore, it cannotbe said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As such thepetition cannot be entertained on the ground of non-affording an opportunity ofhearing and violation of principles of natural justice. 8. As regards the other contention of the petitioner that the authority has not considered the grounds taken in the reply, also cannot be a tenableground because it is well settled that if the order has been passed ignoring oneor more grounds taken in the reply, the same cannot be a ground for invokingextraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitutionof India and such order can be assailed by way of alternative remedy of appealprovided under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. As the present petition was filed on 20.04.2022, i.e. within 20 days from the date of passing the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, therefore, ifthe petitioner files the statutory appeal within a further period of 30 days, thesame shall be decided by the authority on merits, ignoring the question of delayin filing the appeal. 10. With the aforesaid observation, declining interference in theimpugned order, the writ petition is disposed off. ss (SHEEL NAGU)JUDGE (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)JUDGE