TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....states that the impugned order was passed on 19.03.2024 by the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Patna under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). 3. That the appellant states that he was required to file the appeal 19/05/2024. The appellant states that the appeal has been filed on 29/08/2024. Hence there is a delay of around 3 months and 10 days in filing the present appeal. 4. That the appellant states that the above order was an ex-parte order and aggrieved, the appellant filed an application under Section 154 of the Act on 28.03.2024 before the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Patna whereby the appellant prayed for recall of the ex-parte passed under Section 263 of the Act. 5. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Patna rejected the application filed under Section 154 of the Act vide order dated 02.08.2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067269667(1). Copy of dated 02.08.2024 by the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Patna. 6. That the appellant was later advised to challenge the order dated 19.03.2024 passed under Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.12,03,513/-. 8. For that the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna has erred in holding that the assessing officer completed the assessment without making enquiries and verifications, notwithstanding the fact that the assessing officer made all the enquires required as per the Act, particularly the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. 9. For that the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna has erred in directing the assessing officer pass assessment order afresh, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has also filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the matter is sub-judice. 10. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a non-filer and had not filed the return of income for AY 2018-19. The assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and after ensuring statutory compliance as per the procedural requirement. The assessee e-filed the return on 24.04.2022 declaring total loss o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er can be passed without affording a proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard to the affected party. The Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act; however, the order was passed without granting the Appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case. 4. That the Appellant had duly responded to the notice issued under Section 263 and had submitted detailed explanations and supporting evidences justifying the correctness and legality of the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. PCIT has failed to take cognizance of such submissions and evidences while passing the impugned order. 5. That in view of the above, the impugned order stands vitiated as it violates the principles of natural justice, which are sacrosanct in quasi-judicial proceedings. 6. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Tin Box Company v. CIT* [(2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC)] has categorically held that where an order is passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, such order is liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that a meaningful hearing is a fundamental requirement of justice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom being ex-parte, the impugned order is also erroneous in law as the Ld. PCIT has failed to consider the merits of the case and the submissions/ evidences provided by the Appellant. 16. That the Appellant had duly furnished all relevant details and explanations to justify the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, demonstrating that the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, the Ld. PCIT has mechanically invoked the jurisdiction under Section 263 without appreciating these submissions, thereby rendering the order bad in law. 17. That in light of the foregoing facts and legal contentions, the Appellant most humbly prays that: a. The impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Act be quashed as it is ex-parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice. b. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act be restored. c. Any other relief that the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of justice be granted to the Appellant. 18. The Appellant reserves the right to make further submissions, both oral and written, as may be necessary dur....