2025 (3) TMI 1000 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Act Section 250: Order Overturned for Denying Video Conferencing Hearing, Matter Remanded for Re-evaluation.

M/s. Shoreline Development Ltd. Versus The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 3 (1), Chennai, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Chennai

The Madras HC set aside an impugned order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, due to a violation of natural ... Writ of Certiorari to quash an impugned order u/s 250 - opportunity of personal hearing to appear through Video Conferencing has not been provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT:-In the present case, the first respondent provided an option to opt for personal hearing either in person or through Video Conferencing. The petitioner has opted for personal hearing through Video Conferencing. However, the respondents have failed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to appear through Video Conferencing to present the case. Without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 19.06.2024. If any order is passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, it is clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. When the respondent intended to pass orders against the petitioner, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide an opportunity of the personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as the petitioner opted to appear through Video Conferencing to present his case. When the Video Conferencing option was opted by the petitioner, such option was not provided by the respondent. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice, and on this score alone, the present impugned order is liable to be set-aside. The Madras High Court, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, addressed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash an impugned order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 19.06.2024, related to the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner, represented by Mr. A. S. Sriraman, contended that the order was passed without granting a requested personal hearing through Video Conferencing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by Mr. V. Mahalingam, acknowledged this omission. The Court held that failing to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing through Video Conferencing. This process is to be completed within four months from the receipt of the Court's order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.