Saroj Kumar Sahoo V. National Faceless Assessment Centre

WP(C)/11561/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Saroj Kumar Sahoo, the petitioner, who challenged an order from the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without a hearing, despite his requests for one, which he argued violated the principles of natural justice. The court considered a similar case, Arati Behera v. State Tax Officer, and decided to quash the impugned order and remit the case for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing in the assessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686591 (HC-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Arati Behera v. State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Keonjhar and others (W.P.(C) No. 23003 of 2023 decided on 27.07.2023)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K ACHARYA
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Personal hearing
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144(b)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11561 of 2024 Saroj Kumar Sahoo ….. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ….. Opposite Party Mr. S. Mishra, Standing Counsel for Revenue CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 09.05.2024 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.03.2024 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 4. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, as such, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that despite request being made by the petitioner for personal hearing, the same was not extended to him. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the petitioner is an individual residing at Mochibandh, Madhapur S.O, Keonjhar Town in the district of Keonjhar, Odisha Page 2 of 3 and the opposite party is the official of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner was issued with an intimation dated 01.06.2023, in which it was stated that the case of the petitioner for Assessment Year 2022-23 has been selected for the purpose of faceless assessment. The petitioner on 08.08.2023 submitted its reply along with relevant Documents. The petitioner then on 07.07.2023 was issued with a notice under section 142 (1) of the IT Act and was directed to submit certain documents. The petitioner was again issued with a notice under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act on 07.08.2023 in which the petitioner was directed to submit documents. Though the petitioner submitted the documents, but without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, even though the petitioner made a categorical request to grant opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed. According to him this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Arati Behera v. State Tax Officer, CT & GST, Keonjhar and others (W.P.(C) No. 23003 of 2023 decided on 27.07.2023). 5. Mr. A. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for IT Department contended that on perusal of the impugned order, it does not indicate whether the petitioner has been given personal hearing or not, but if that be so, then in terms of the aforesaid decision, the matter may be remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh hearing. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner in spite of request made by him, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and applying the decision of this Court in Arati Behera (supra), quashed the order Page 3 of 3 dated 21.03.2024 passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2022-23 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-May-2024 11:33:48 Signature Not Verified "