<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (9) TMI 647 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758403</link>
    <description>An assessment order under the faceless regime was unsustainable because the assessee had specifically sought a personal hearing and was not afforded one despite filing replies and documents. The Court applied the principle that an order affecting rights cannot be sustained when passed in breach of natural justice, and quashed the assessment. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 647 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758403</link>
      <description>An assessment order under the faceless regime was unsustainable because the assessee had specifically sought a personal hearing and was not afforded one despite filing replies and documents. The Court applied the principle that an order affecting rights cannot be sustained when passed in breach of natural justice, and quashed the assessment. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>