Mayur Batra vs Assisstant Commissioner Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 784 Del

                              $~57
                              *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              +      W.P.(C) 4447/2022 & CM APPLs. 13280-13281/2022

                                     MAYUR BATRA                                     ..... Petitioner
                                                        Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate.

                                                        versus

                                     ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF
                                     INCOME TAX CIRCLE 61(1) & ANR.           ..... Respondents
                                                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with
                                                           Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocate.

                              %                        Date of Decision: 16th March, 2022
                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
                                                          JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Penalty order dated 7th February, 2022 passed by the respondents under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that before levying the penalty, the replies of the petitioner filed on 17th December, 2021 and reiterated as well as uploaded on 22nd and 27th January, 2022 were not considered by the respondents. He further states that the petitioner h as n ot been granted personal hearing in the matter despite repeated requests.

3. Issue notice.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:21.03.2022 10:46:47

4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel accepts n otice on behalf of t h e respondents. He states that he has no instructions in the matter.

5. Upon perusal of the paper book as well as screenshot of t h e In come Tax Portal pertaining to the petitioner, in particular, this court finds t hat t he petitioner had filed his replies to the notices issued to him by the respondents. Despite filing of the said replies, the same were not considered while passing the impugned order. In fact t he im pugned order st ates t hat despite giving several opportunities the petitioner had not filed any reply/response.

6. Further, this Court in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine Del 105 has laid down that an assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given if su ch a request is made by the assessee.

7. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside on the ground that it is violative of the principle of natural justice and the matter is rem anded back to the respondent no.2 for fresh adjudication. The respondent no.2 shall grant a hearing to the petitioner before passing an order. Th e respon dent no.2 is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law wit hin t welve weeks. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition an d applications stand disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MARCH 16, 2022 js

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:21.03.2022 10:46:47