2025 (10) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short "the Act") dated 31.08.2024 along with demand notice dated 23.03.2024 under Section 156 of the Act and notice for penalty under Section 274 read with Section 217AAC of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 5. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld not file any reply, the respondent passed the final Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 23.03.2024 as well as raised demand notice under Section 156 of the Act as well as notice for penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC of the Act on the same date i.e. on 23.03.2024, which are not impugned in the present writ petition. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel for the petitioner submitted that the final Assessment Order passed by the respondent is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the show cause notice dated 15.03.2024, the respondent granted time of less than three days to file its reply. Two days out of the three days were Saturday and Sunday and, therefore, p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... three days; time was granted to the petitioner to file its reply, and two days out of three days were Saturday and Sunday. It was therefore submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the respondent had given only three days' time to file the reply. It is a fundamental proposition of law that the other side should be heard before any order is passed. The maxim of Audi Alteram Partem is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing is must for it to be unbiased hearing. In the instant case, the fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given appropriate tim....