TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, 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 issued a show cause notice dated 8.4.2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt 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 personal hearing to be exercised by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as the FAO cannot i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner 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 was a case wherein the High Court delved into the merits of the case and quashed the assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 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 for personal hearing referred to in clause (vii) if he is of the opinion that the request is covered by the circumstances referred to in sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les 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 and processes for approving the request for personal hearing have been framed by the competent authority. 14. Coming to the reliance placed on Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra), as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases wher....