Wp/11122/2024 Of Toyota Industries Engine India Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitallysigned byVIJAYA PLocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 11122 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1. TOYOTA INDUSTRIES ENGINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT 9, PHASE II, JIGANI INDUSTRIES AREA BUKKASAGARA BANGALORE-560 105 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VP - CORPORATE MR AMIT JAIN … PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 KOLKATA AAYAKAR BHAWAN P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA-700 069 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DILIP, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 18.03.24 BEARING NO. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062868799(1) ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2.Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice insofar as the request for adjournment was declined and rejection of such request for adjournment has caused prejudice and necessitates interference with the impugned order. 3.It is to be noticed that during the pendency of proceedings, on a date fixed for hearing i.e., 14.03.2024 petitioner being unable to attend had sought for adjournment to a date after 15.04.2024 as per Annexure-G. However, perusal of the order passed on 18.03.2024 would indicate that the First Appellate Authority has disposed off the appeal and while doing so, while dealing with the response of the assessee, has observed "no adjournment petition has been filed. Therefore, there is no other option but to finalize the proceedings based on material available on record." There is further observation, which reads as follows: "Hence, it is apparent that the Appellant has nothing to furnish on the specific query made u/s 250(4) and I proceed to dispose off the Appeal." 4.Taking note of the request for adjournment as is evidenced by the communication at Annexure-G which is not disputed, the order passed ignoring the request dated 14.03.2024 is to be held to be an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice as asserted. 5.Accordingly on such sole ground, the order at Annexure-J is set aside and the respondent is directed to rehear the appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All contentions are kept open. In light of the above, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP