Wp/3755/2023 Of Shri Swami Samartha Developers And Builders, Nagpur v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Income Tax Office, Nagpur And Others

42. WP 3755 of 2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3755/2023 Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur...Versus… Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4) Nagpur, Maharashtra and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders or directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. Abhay Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Bhushan Mohta, Advocate for respondents CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. DATE : 18/01/2024 1.The petition questions the order dated30/03/2023 (pg.130) on the ground that in spite of havingrequested for a personal hearing by the communication dated06/03/2023, the petitioner was not granted any such hearing,which has resulted in denial of a reasonable and fairopportunity to the petitioner to explain his stand to theAssessment Officer. 2.Without going into the merits of the matter, aperusal of the e-mail dated 06/03/2023 (pg.101) wouldindicate that a request for personal hearing was indeed madeto the respondents. However, there is no decision to thisrequest either way. 3.Since Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for therespondents contends that there was a different show-causenotice given later in point of time and no personal hearing wasrequested, in that regard, a query was made to him as towhether the first notice was withdrawn, to which, he answersin the negative. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthere is no substantial difference between the first and thesecond notice and therefore, the denial is unjustified. 5.The record indicates that on 06/03/2023, arequest for personal hearing was made by the petitioner toexplain the facts of the case so that there was no doubletaxation leading to harassment of the petitioner. Since there isan admitted position that in pursuance to the said request nopersonal hearing was given, neither there is a denial spelt onrecord backed by sufficient reasons, this would clearly indicatedenial of an opportunity to the petitioner is spite of his requestin that regard. 6.In that view of the matter, only on this ground theimpugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and thematter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to grant hearingto the petitioner in-person through Video Conferencing on Wadkar 05/02/2024 at 11:00 a.m. 7.The respondents shall make appropriatearrangements for sending video conferencing link to thepetitioner. 8.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in theabove terms. No order as to costs. (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)