TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondents: By Advs. Sri. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Counsel, Goi (Taxes), Jose Joseph, Sc, For Income Tax, P.R. Ajith Kumar, CGC. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Banking Company licensed by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the statutory authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has been an assessee on the file of respondent No. 3 within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 - the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner challenges the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The petitioner pleaded the following:- 2.1. The competent authority in the Income Tax Department passed a draft assessment order and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t giving an opportunity of personal hearing, respondent No. 1 passed Ext.P5 assessment order making an additional demand of Rs.321.26 Crores. 3. The respondent pleaded the following:- When Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner - assessee, it had the option to apply for a hearing through video conferencing in the e-filing module. But, in the case of the assessee, it has not opted for a personal hearing through video conferencing in the online module but filed its reply on 13.4.2021 through written submission against the show cause notice dated 8.4.2021. The assessee should have opted for a hearing through video conferencing while replying to the show cause notice online. The assessee cannot leave the choice for a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntions. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge Ext.P5 order when there is the equally efficacious remedy. The learned Standing Counsel relied on Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603 = (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC)] to fortify his contentions. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the facts considered in Chhabil Dass Agarwal are not applicable to the present case as it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order or revised draft assessment order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the such draft or final draft or revised draft assessment order, the assessee or his authorized representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority in any unit; (viii) the Chief Commissioner or the Director General, in charge of the Regional Faceless Assessment Centre, under which the concerned unit is set up, may approve the request....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the same. Admittedly, nothing has been placed before the court that any such standards, procedures or processes have been framed as yet. 12. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all Civilized States is of supreme importance when a competent statutory authority embarks on an action involving civil consequences. The fundamental principle is that no one should be condemned unheard. 13. In the present case, the petitioner assessee has specifically requested for personal hearing through video conferencing. It may be true that in the online mode the assessee had not exercised the option. That is not a ground to deny the opportunity of hearing when the statute provides otherwise and no standards, procedures an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must b....