Bombay High Court
Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:5218-DB
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17572 OF 2024
Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni
Age 64 years, Occupation: Retired
B2/8, Building Kasliwal Classic,
Phase I, Tapdiya Nagar,
Aurangabad - 431 005. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PUNE BENCH,
Through its Registrar,
2nd Floor, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Bldg.,
Near St. Marry High School, 463,
Stavely road, Camp, Pune -411 001
Email: [email protected]
2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),
AURANGABAD ,
Add: Aayakar Bhawan,
LIC Building, (Jeevan Suntan Building) N-5,
Cidco, Aurangabad431003
Email: [email protected]
3. UNION OF INDIA,
Through the Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue,
Room No. 46, North Block, ... Respondents
New Delhi -- 110 001.
Mr. Sanket S. Bora a/w Ms. Unnatii A. Thakkar i/b. SPCE, for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Saxena, for the Respondent - State.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 10 DECEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 4 FEBRUARY 2025
Rajesh Chittewan, PA Page 1 of 12
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2025 22:22:37 :::
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
_______________________
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service.
By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by an Order dated 12 March 2024
(received by the Petitioner on 11 October 2024) passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" for short), Pune Bench under section 254(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act" for short).
3. The substantive prayer in the petition reads thus :-
"A. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction,
calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going
into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside
the impugned Order dated 12"' March 2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 1;"
A) Issue Before the Court:
4. The primary issue that falls for consideration revolves around the
legality and validity of impugned order of ITAT dated 12 March 2024 alleged to
be passed without hearing the petitioner and/or his representative and without
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
considering the written submissions filed by the petitioner, in contravention of
the well settled jurisprudential principles of natural justice.
(B) Factual Matrix:
The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present proceedings are :-
5. The petitioner assessee in the present case is a 64 years old retired
serviceman, who earned income primarily from salary for the relevant
assessment year being Assessment Year 2019-2020 ("A.Y. 2019-20" in short).
He was then an employee of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. ("Pfizer
Healthcare" for short) posted at Aurangabad from where he derived his salary
income.
6. Respondent no. 1/ITAT which passed the impugned order dated
12 March 2024 under section 254(1) of the IT Act ought not to have been
made a party. Respondent no. 2 is the jurisdictional assessing officer.
Respondent no. 3 is the Union of India.
7. The petitioner filed his original income tax returns ("ITR" for
short) for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 1 August 2019 declaring a total income of
Rs.57,84,740/-. The petitioner had claimed relief under section 89(1) of the IT
Act for an amount of Rs.13,22,187/-. Subsequently, the petitioner's case was
selected for scrutiny under Computer Assessed Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
Pursuant thereto, a notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the
petitioner on 31 March 2021, followed by notice dated 16 August 2021 issued
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
under section 142(1) of the IT Act, calling for details and documents. In
response to such notices, the petitioner submitted copies of computation of
income, Form 26AS, Form 16, Form 10E along with other supporting
documents.
8. Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice-cum-draft
assessment order dated 16 September 2021 to the petitioner directing him to
furnish his reply on or before 19 September 2021. The petitioner filed his
submissions/reply dated 16 September 2021 to the show cause notice-cum-draft
assessment order issued by respondent no. 2. The petitioner also requested for
the grant of a personal hearing through video conferencing, which was so
granted on 23 September 2021.
9. According to the petitioner the relief claimed by him under
section 89(1) of the IT Act warranted consideration, as such amount was a
salary advance, justifying such relief. However, the petitioner during the course
of assessment proceedings withdrew such relief as claimed under section 89(1)
and alternatively claimed receipts of Ex-Gratia and other incentives as capital
receipts. This was with reference to the amounts received from his employer, i.e.,
Pfizer Healthcare on account of closure of its plant at Aurangabad and in terms
of the settlement to all permanent employees under the financial scheme for
employees of Aurangabad 2019, dated 9 January 2019.
10. Respondent no. 2 proceeded to pass the assessment order dated
29 September 2021 under section 143(1) read with section 144B of the IT Act.
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
In passing such order, the petitioner's submissions were rejected on the ground
that the amount received by the petitioner on termination of employment
cannot be treated as salary in advance, as claimed by the petitioner. Thus, the
relief claimed by the petitioner under section 89(1) of the IT Act for an amount
of Rs.13,22,187/- was rejected by the assessment order.
11. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said assessment order,
approached the National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC" in short) by filing an
appeal dated 28 October 2021 in Form 35 under section 246A(1) of the IT Act
read with rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("IT Rules" for short), on the
grounds as set out in the said appeal memo.
12. It was during the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the
NFAC that various notices under section 250 of the IT Act were issued to the
petitioner on 31 August 2022, 15 March 2023, 9 May 2023, 22 June 2023, 6
July 2023, 25 July 2023, 3 August 2023 and 4 September 2023. However, the
petitioner's Chartered Accountant ("CA" in short) could not respond to the
above notices, and sought adjournments, mainly on the ground that a senior CA
was intended to be engaged to defend the petitioner in the said proceedings.
13. On the aforesaid backdrop, the NFAC proceeded to pass an ex-
parte order dated 8 September 2023, rejecting the petitioner's appeal filed
before it, thereby confirming the assessment order passed by respondent no. 2.
14. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above, approached ITAT,
Pune, by filing an appeal dated 6 November 2023 in Form 36 under section
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
253 of the IT Act read with rule 47(1) of the IT Rules. The petitioner
supported his case on the grounds set out in the appeal memo.
15. The appeal filed by the petitioner was listed for hearing on 11
March 2024 before the Division Bench of ITAT, Pune. The petitioner's
advocate submitted that the matter was required to be remanded to the NFAC,
on the ground that the order of the NFAC was an ex-parte order, as it was passed
in absence of a hearing being granted to the petitioner/his representative. The
petitioner's CA also filed an affidavit in this regard. The ITAT rejected the
petitioner's prayer to remand the matter to NFAC and insisted on hearing the
appeal on merits. The petitioner's advocate then requested for a short
adjournment, so that a paper book could be submitted. However, such request
was denied. The petitioner's advocate then requested to the ITAT to grant one
day's time to submit such paper book and to take up appeal for hearing on
merits on the next date. Such request was also rejected by the ITAT. The
petitioner's advocate was directed to submit written submissions and paper book
on the basis of which, the ITAT would pass appropriate orders. The petitioner
through his legal representative accordingly submitted written submissions,
along with the paper book and case laws on 12 March 2024, before the ITAT.
16. It was in the above backdrop that the ITAT proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 12 March 2024, a copy of which was received by the
petitioner on 11 October 2024 by email. The petitioner being aggrieved by such
order approached this court by filing a writ petition dated 18 October 2024.
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
(C) Submission and Analysis:
17. Mr. Sanket S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is seriously prejudiced by the actions of the
respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned order dated 12 March 2024
received by him on 11 October 2024 as also the ex-parte order of the
jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e., Respondent No. 2 dated 8 September
2023. It is the petitioner's case that completely overlooking the principles
of natural justice, the ITAT without an opportunity of an appropriate
hearing to the petitioner to represent his case on merits, the ITAT
proceeded to pass the impugned order.
18. Mr. Bora, would urge that as it is the petitioner was aggrieved
by an ex-parte order dated 8 September 2023 passed by respondent no. 2
and it was against such order, the petitioner approached the ITAT in the
appeal in question under section 253 of the IT Act, in the hope of justice.
However, the ITAT despite an ex-parte order being suffered by the
petitioner at the hands of respondent no. 2, refused to remand the
proceedings to respondent no. 2, despite such prayer of the petitioner. Mr.
Bora, would further submit that the petitioner was not given any
opportunity to plead his case before the ITAT in as much as ITAT even
turndown the request made by the petitioner's Advocate to submit a paper
book for which a short adjournment was sought. Mr. Bora, would then
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
submit that despite furnishing written submission along with the paper
book and the relevant case laws on 12 March 2024 the ITAT disregarded
the same and proceeded to pass the impugned order on the petitioner's
appeal causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
19. Considering the above Mr. Bora would refer to the following
orders passed by the ITAT on the same day, i.e., 12 March 2024, which are
summarized below:-
Sr. Party Name Appeal No.
No.
1. Vijay Kamble 162/PUN/2024
2. Somnath Shinde 1224/PUN/2023
3. Shailendra Singh I.T.A. No. 1202/PUN/2023
4. Vaishali Gatagat I.T.A. No. 1400/PUN/2023
He would thus urge that ITAT had in similar facts and
circumstances remanded the matter to the assessing officer for further
consideration on merits. As the ITAT did not adopt the same approach in
the present case. According to him a fair approach ought to have been
adopted by the ITAT considering the facts of the case, as no prejudice
would have been caused to the respondents.
20. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Saxena, the learned counsel for
the respondents would support the impugned order and the reasoning set
out therein. The respondents' case is that the petitioner was given several
opportunities to represent its case before respondent no. 2 and before the
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
ITAT. However, the petitioner for reasons best known, failed to avail such
opportunities available to the petitioner. The ITAT in adjudicating the
petitioner's appeal has correctly analyzed the case of the petitioner on
merits with particular reference to the proviso to section 89 of the IT Act
under which no relief could have been granted to the petitioner, in respect
of the amount received or receivable by the petitioner on his voluntary
retirement or termination of service in accordance with the scheme of
voluntary retirement. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner under
section 89 was clearly hit by the proviso to section 89(1) under which the
petitioner was not entitled to any relief. As regards the additional claim
made by the petitioner before the CIT appeal on the amounts in question
to be considered as compensation to be treated as capital receipt, also
could not have been accepted as such compensation fall within the ambit
of section 17(iii) of the IT Act, under which the compensation received
from the former employer for termination of services is taxable as profit in
lieu of salary. According to the respondents the ITAT was justified in
concluding, that there was no need to remand the proceedings to
respondent no. 2. In light of the above, such remand would be an exercise
in futility. Accordingly, the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of
the petitioner.
(D) Reasons & Conclusion :
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
21. At the very outset in our view this is a case where the
violation of the settled principles of natural justice is not just apparent but
real, palpable and clearly visible. The petitioner is deprived of an
opportunity to present its case not only before the respondent no. 2 but
also subsequently before the ITAT. In not affording a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to present its case had perpetuated from the
ex-parte order passed by respondent no. 2 which in our opinion was not
noticed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order.
22. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional assessing officer, i.e.,
respondent no. 2 under the faceless regime passed an ex-parte assessment
order, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.
Thus, evaluation of assessment of the petitioner's income and rejecting the
submissions of the petitioner was undertaken also ought to have been
appropriately undertaken by following the natural rules of fairness
adhering to the principles of natural justice and such infirmity at least
should have been addressed by the ITAT in passing the impugned order.
23. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT makes it clear
that it proceeded to deal with the case of the petitioner on merits as is
evident from paragraph 5 of its order. The petitioner submitted that
considering the fact that the order impugned before the ITAT itself was
passed by respondent no. 2 was passed ex-parte, it would be just and
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
proper for the ITAT to remand the matter to respondent no. 2 for passing
orders on merits, after considering submissions of the petitioner. Also, the
written submissions being tendered on behalf of the petitioner before the
ITAT on 12 March 2024 the same appear to have not being considered in
the impugned order being passed by the Tribunal. We may refer to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport
Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union.1 The Supreme Court inter alia held
that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely
affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi alteram partem
is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such
decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of
being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24. In the facts and circumstances of the given case, it will be apposite
to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar.2 The Supreme Court in
interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the
appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well
as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not
dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. There is no escape from the
conclusion that under the said provision, the appellate tribunal had to dispose
1 AIR 1999 SC 564
2 1969 1 SCC 591
WP 17572-2024 - 4.02.2025.doc
off the appeal on merits which could not have been done by dismissing the
appeal summarily for default of appearance. The principles laid down in the said
decision would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
in as much as the petitioner was neither heard nor were his written submissions
placed before the ITAT, considered.
25. In light of the above, we concur with the submissions of Mr. Bora
in regard to the setting aside of the impugned order of the ITAT dated 12 March
2024 is concerned. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Saxena for
the respondent for the reasons noted above.
26. Considering the above discussion, we allow this petition in terms
of prayer clause (a).
27. We accordingly remand the proceedings to the ITAT, i.e.,
respondent no. 1 for de novo hearing of the petitioner's appeal filed before it.
ITAT shall after hearing the parties, pass fresh orders on merits and in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible not later than within six weeks
from the date of this order made available to the ITAT.
28. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
RAJESH by RAJESH
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.02.04
13:08:26 +0530
