Court orders personal hearing before Appellate Authority, stresses fairness & outlines procedure for writ petitioner

The Court granted the writ petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing procedural fairness. The writ petitioner was directed to pay costs within a specified timeframe, failing which the impugned orders would stand revived. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but set aside the orders to facilitate the necessary personal hearing. The writ petitioner was instructed to follow a specific procedure if availing the personal hearing, ensuring a fresh consideration of the appeals by the Appellate Authority. Compliance reporting was scheduled to monitor adherence to the Court's directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Opportunity of personal hearing before the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
The case involves a Partnership Firm engaged in the production and distribution of Motion Pictures, which filed returns for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment orders and filed statutory appeals under Section 250 of the IT Act. The main contention raised in the writ petitions was the lack of an opportunity for personal hearing before the Appellate Authority, which is deemed statutorily imperative under Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 250 of the IT Act.

The impugned orders mentioned that a notice of hearing was sent to the writ petitioner but was returned unserved. Despite this, an adjournment was sought by the writ petitioner. The Revenue counsel argued that the writ petitioner had sought an adjournment, indicating an opportunity for a hearing. However, the writ petitioner claimed that the notices for personal hearing were never served, making the contentions of the Revenue counsel untenable. The Court acknowledged the statutory requirement of providing a personal hearing and decided to grant the writ petitioner one opportunity for a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in such matters.

To ensure compliance and protect the interests of both parties, the Court directed the writ petitioner to pay costs as a condition precedent for the personal hearing. The impugned orders were set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, solely to facilitate the necessary personal hearing. The writ petitioner was instructed to pay costs within a specified timeframe, failing which the impugned orders would stand revived. Additionally, the Court outlined the procedure to be followed if the writ petitioner availed the personal hearing, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration of the appeals by the Appellate Authority.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with the outlined directions, ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained by granting the writ petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing before the Appellate Authority. The case was closed, with the matters listed for compliance reporting at a later date to monitor adherence to the Court's directives.

---