Patna High Court
Prabhat Narain Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 May, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Harish Kumar
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 16 th 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
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.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.05.2024
Transmission Date
