Prabhat Narain Singh V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

CWJC/3886/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Prabhat Narain Singh, the petitioner, who contested the lack of a personal hearing by the Appellate Authority in an income tax appeal. Despite requesting a personal hearing in his written submissions, the petitioner was not afforded this opportunity. The Appellate Authority, however, claimed that a virtual hearing was conducted, which the petitioner disputed. The High Court found that the procedural requirements for a personal hearing were not adequately met, leading to the setting aside of the appellate order and remanding the case for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764924 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY RASTOGI; SMRITI SINGH; KALPANA RASTOGI
• Keywords: Appellate Authority; Income Tax; Personal hearing; Faceless Authority

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3886 of 2024 ====================================================== Prabhat Narain Singh, S/o Sri Late Prasiddha Narayan Singh, Permanent Resident of 103, Sri Ram Place, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001, P.O.- GPO and P.S.- Buddha Colony, District- Patna, Bihar presently residing at Flat No.37, A Wing Ahuja Tower, Rajabhau Anant Desai Marg, Prabhadevi, P.O.-Prabhadevi, P.S.- Dadar, Mumbai - 400025, Maharashtra. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate Mrs. Kalpana Rastogi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel Income Tax Department ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 01-05-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner despite a request made in the written submissions filed before the Appellate Authority, which as per the present scheme of things, is a Faceless Authority. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner specifically points out the plea made for a personal hearing, as is available in the written submissions produced as Annexure-4. At Ground No. 56, the petitioner had specifically raised a plea for Patna High Court CWJC No.3886 of 2024 dt.01-05-2024 2/3 personal hearing. The same was not afforded and the petitioner has also pleaded in Paragraph 12 that no opportunity of personal hearing was ever granted to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department from the Appellate Order, Paragraph 27, points out that the Appellate Authority records that a hearing was fixed and the representative attended and was heard. 4. We extract hereunder the specific portion of Paragraph 27:- “27. In the letter the assessee has requested for the V.C. hearing. The same is fixed on 16th at 3 PM as per the request and link is provided after the approval of the higher authorities. In the VC hearing the representative attended and briefed issues.” 5. We see that the month in which the hearing took place is not specified. The written submissions were filed on 10.02.2023 and the appellate order, produced as Annexure-P/1, was passed on 31.01.2024. We also see that the specific averment made in the writ petition has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Definitely, if a hearing was conducted, there should have been a notice issued, either in the physical form or auto populated, which should also find place in the Patna High Court CWJC No.3886 of 2024 dt.01-05-2024 3/3 counter affidavit. There is no averment controverting the specific allegation of no personal hearing having been afforded. We are also unable to place any reliance on Paragraph 27 in the Appellate Order, which is a mechanical statement made without specification of the exact day on which the hearing was conducted, without specification of the month. 6. We hence set aside the order dated 31.01.2024 at Annexure-P/1 directing the Appellate Authority to intimate the hearing date and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass a speaking order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the assessment and the same would be decided by the Appellate Authority. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the writ petition is allowed. P.K.P./- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02.05.2024 Transmission Date "