Remanded

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Income Tax Office, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC18 Jan 2024WP/3755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur quashed an Income Tax impugned order for denying a personal hearing upon request. The Court remanded the matter to grant an in-person video conferencing hearing to the petitioner, noting the lack of sufficient reasons for the denial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30/03/2023 is quashed and set aside; matter remitted to respondent no.3 for a personal hearing via video conferencing.

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur Vs Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP 3755 of 2023.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-NAG:706-DB

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3755/2023

¶6

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur ...Versus…

¶7

Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4) Nagpur, Maharashtra and others

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

¶12

Mr. Abhay Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Bhushan Mohta, Advocate for respondents

¶13

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. DATE : 18/01/2024

¶14

The petition questions the order dated 30/03/2023 (pg.130) on the ground that in spite of having requested for a personal hearing by the communication dated 06/03/2023, the petitioner was not granted any such hearing, which has resulted in denial of a reasonable and fair opportunity to the petitioner to explain his stand to the Assessment Officer.

¶15

Without going into the merits of the matter, a perusal of the e-mail dated 06/03/2023 (pg.101) would indicate that a request for personal hearing was indeed made to the respondents. However, there is no decision to this request either way.

¶16

WP 3755 of 2023.odt

¶17

¶18

Since Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents contends that there was a different show-cause notice given later in point of time and no personal hearing was requested, in that regard, a query was made to him as to whether the first notice was withdrawn, to which, he answers in the negative.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no substantial difference between the first and the second notice and therefore, the denial is unjustified.

¶20

The record indicates that on 06/03/2023, a request for personal hearing was made by the petitioner to explain the facts of the case so that there was no double taxation leading to harassment of the petitioner. Since there is an admitted position that in pursuance to the said request no personal hearing was given, neither there is a denial spelt on record backed by sufficient reasons, this would clearly indicate denial of an opportunity to the petitioner is spite of his request in that regard.

¶21

In that view of the matter, only on this ground the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to grant hearing to the petitioner in-person through Video Conferencing on

¶22

WP 3755 of 2023.odt

¶23

¶24

05/02/2024 at 11:00 a.m.

¶25

The respondents shall make appropriate arrangements for sending video conferencing link to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶27

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶28

Wadkar

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Income Tax Office, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Income Tax Office, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. A1 Udai Exim Llp, Lucknow, Thr. Partner, Rahul Prakash S/O. Sanjay Agarwal Vs the Commissioner of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Nagpur and Another

Pravin S/O Kisanlalji Lohiya and Others Vs the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur and Others

Surekha W/O. Ganesh Pidurkar Vs Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Chandrapur and Others

Ashok Enterprises a Partnership Firm, Thr. Authorized Partner, Vijay Balkisan Gangan vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

102, Rugna Vahika Wahan Chalak Sanghatan, Walgaon, Thr. President, Pradeep Sahebrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department Public Health, Mumbai and Others

Dipak S/O. Wandevrao Dange Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Chairman, Nagpur and Others