Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 256 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144C - non-consideration of the objections by the DRP - violation of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that principles of natural justice and its violation with regard to certain disputed issues need not be gone into by the High Court in the writ proceedings, so also the jurisdictional issues, if relatable to the disputed facts, then also the aggrieved person may be granted liberty to prefer an appeal for effective adjudication of such disputes - if the principles of violation of natural justice or the jurisdiction directly hitting the provisions of the Statute is established, then the High Court has to look into the seriousness of such violations for the purpose of restoring the right of the aggrieved persons and issue suitable orders to provide such opportunities as contemplated. Pertinent point that the Assessee would get an opportunity to raise all the points raised in the objections before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Appellate Authority. However, such a submission has no force as the valuable right conferred under the Act to the Assessee can never be taken away. In the event of glaring violation of the provisions of the Act, the High Court has to provide an appropriate relief to the aggrieved persons.In the event of failure, the High Court would be failing in its constitutional duty to restore the valuable right of an Assessee conferred under the Income Tax Act. The principles of natural justice being an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the direct violation of the provisions in this regard is a ground for entertaining a writ petition. Where the violation of principles of natural justice is raised and interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act is imminent, then it is necessary to entertain the writ petition to ascertain the nature of rights conferred to an Assessee or the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Act. While doing so, if the rights violated are patent and caused infringement of right to either of the parties, then the aggrieved person is entitled for an appropriate relief.Thus, the objections raised by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, stand rejected. Petitioner, fairly made a submission that all such disputes are to be adjudicated before the Competent Authority as the point of jurisdiction as well as the manner in which an order must be passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. This Court is of the considered opinion that the DRP had failed to act in the manner as contemplated, more specifically, under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 144-C of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the order passed, rejecting the objections submitted by the Assessee, merely on the ground that the Assessee has not appeared on the hearing date, is infirm and liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
|