HARBANS SINGH V. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

WP(C)/15257/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harbans Singh, the petitioner, who challenged the orders of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, through its Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and others, claiming they were illegal and arbitrary. The primary contention was that the petitioner was not properly noticed by the Appellate Authority before the final appellate order was passed, which led him to approach the High Court directly without availing the alternative remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The court found merit in the petitioner's claim of not being served with the notices of hearing, leading to the quashing of the appellate order and remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670272 (HC-ORISSA)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KEDA
• Assessee Lawyers: AVIJIT PATNAIK
• Keywords: Appellate order; Income Tax; Notice of hearing; Remand back; Writ application

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15257 of 2025 Harbans Singh …. Petitioner Mr.Avijit Patnaik, Advocate -versus- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi through its Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (NaFAC), Delhi and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.Avinash Keda, Junior Standing Counsel Income Tax CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 10.06.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr.Pattnaiak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. The present writ application has been filed with the following prayer(s):- “a) The impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 shall not be declared as illegal and arbitrary; b) the impugned order under Annexures-1 and 2 shall not be quashed and set aside; c) the show cause notice under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed and set aside; and d) declare the action of the opposite parties as illegal” Page 2 of 3 4. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 under Annexure-1 passed by the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Mr.Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that an appeal lies under the statute to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, the petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, has come to this Court by filing the present writ application. In reply to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department, Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal do not stand as a bar since the case of the petitioner is that he was not noticed by the Appellant Authority before passing the final appellate order. 5. On a perusal of the impugned appellate order, it appears that there is nothing on record to satisfy this Court that in fact the assessee was duly served with the notices of hearing before passing the appellate order. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, thinks it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 under Annexure-1 thereby to provide another opportunity to the petitioner to place all his record before the competent authority for verification. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annecxur-1 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the opposite party no.1 with a direction to provide an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the final order in appeal. The petitioner is further directed to Page 3 of 3 cooperate with the Appellate Authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.1 and produce all his records and document on being noticed by Opposite Party No.1. It is further directed that every endeavor shall be made by O.P. No.1 to conclude the proceeding within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not take any unnecessary adjournments and cooperate for early conclusion of the proceeding. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (A.K. Mohapatra) Vacation Judge (M.S. Raman) Vacation Judge Basu Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 10-Jun-2025 18:24:35 Signature Not Verified "