Wp/359/2022 Of Premlata Ramakant Fatehpuria v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Nagpur And Others

23-WP-359-22(J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2022Premlata Ramakant Fatehpuria,Aged about 61 years, Occupation- Business,R/o. Naik Sadan, Central Avenue Road,Nagpur-440 002... PETITIONERVersus 1]Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1,having his office at Ayakar Bhavan, Nagpur.2]The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Nagpur having his office at MECL, Seminary Hills, Nagpur.3]The National Faceless Assessment Center,New Delhi, through the Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax (NFAC), having its office at Delhi. ....... RESPONDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with S/Shri A.A.Choube andA.S.Manohar, Advocates for petitioner.Shri S.N.Bhattad, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. –-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA S. JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.DATE : 8[th] JUNE, 2022. ORAL JUDGMENT(Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order ofassessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated19.06.2021 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), NewDelhi. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.04.2021 a show causenotice was issued seeking a response from the petitioner as to why theassessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. Thepetitioner was called upon to submit her response by 25.04.2021 either byaccepting the proposed modifications or by filing written reply objecting tothe same or making a request for personal hearing. In response thereto, thepetitioner contends that on 23.04.2021 a request was made for grant ofpersonal hearing after submission of the written reply. Despite this request, itis the grievance of the petitioner that without granting any opportunity ofpersonal hearing, the assessment order has been passed. 4.Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner had made a request for grant of personal hearingwithin the time within which response from the petitioner was sought. It wasincumbent upon the respondent no.3 to have granted an opportunity ofpersonal hearing before passing the assessment order. There was no justification for not granting such opportunity when in fact the petitioner wasput to notice that if such request is made by 25.04.2021, personal hearingwould be granted. The option of grant of personal hearing having beenexercised prior to that date, the petitioner ought to have heard in theproceedings before passing the assessment order. For want of properopportunity of hearing, prejudice has been caused and in that regardreference is made to the observations in paragraph 8.1.1 of the assessmentorder to demonstrate the perversity therein. It is thus submitted that theimpugned order was liable to be set aside and the proceedings deserve to beremanded for fresh adjudication. 5.The respondents through their learned counsel Shri S.N.Bhattadhave opposed the aforesaid submissions by filing their reply. It has beenstated in the reply that after giving the show cause notice to the petitioner,the order of assessment has been passed and there was no breach ofprinciples of natural justice. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and havingperused the documents on record, it is clear that in response to the showcause notice dated 22.04.2021, the petitioner had on 23.04.2021 sought anopportunity for grant of personal hearing. Despite receipt of this request bythe respondent no.3, the impugned order has been passed after a period of 5.The respondents through their learned counsel Shri S.N.Bhattadhave opposed the aforesaid submissions by filing their reply. It has beenstated in the reply that after giving the show cause notice to the petitioner,the order of assessment has been passed and there was no breach ofprinciples of natural justice. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and havingperused the documents on record, it is clear that in response to the showcause notice dated 22.04.2021, the petitioner had on 23.04.2021 sought anopportunity for grant of personal hearing. Despite receipt of this request bythe respondent no.3, the impugned order has been passed after a period of almost two months but without granting any such opportunity. Theimpugned order does not indicate the reason for not granting suchopportunity despite request for the same having been made within time andreceived by the respondent no.3. We find from the facts of the present casethat failure to grant such opportunity to the petitioner has definitely causedprejudice to the petitioner. On the ground that the principles of natural justicehave been violated, the impugned order of assessment is liable to be set aside. 7.Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, the assessment order dated19.06.2021 is set aside. Considering the facts of the present case, therespondent no.3 shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to thepetitioner through video conferencing before it proceeds further in terms ofthe show cause notice dated 22.04.2021. All points on merits are kept open.It is expected that the respondent no.3 shall pass fresh assessment orderwithin a period of four months from today. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (URMILA S. JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)