The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32245 of 2020 M/s. Divakar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner -Versus- The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur and another Represented by Adv.– Ms. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.08.2025 07. 1. Ms. Kajal Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 3rd May, 2024, the certified copy of the orders impugned in the instant writ petition have been filed in the Department, which is corroborated by the reports appended to the file by the Department. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as Annexure-4 is concerned, it does not relate to any order, but pertains to a series of petition, which are also filed in the Department. The aforesaid submission is made to obviate any inconsistencies and/or discrepancies on the factual aspect. Page 1 of 6 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, since the certified copies have already been filed and taken on record, there is no impediment on the part of the petitioner to proceed with the instant matter. 4. The petitioner has been subjected to different forums created in the statute and suffered an order which is impugned in the instant writ petition solely on the premise that the authority has violated the principles of natural justice in not affording an opportunity of hearing and explaining the conduct by relying several documents. 4.1 At the time of assessment under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer arrived at the conclusion that the subject transaction has been clandestinely made to evade the tax and impose the tax and penalty on the petitioner. The order of the assessing officer was assailed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) where the interference was made and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer for reassessment or deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made therein. The opposite parties-Department challenged the said order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) wherein the petitioner filed a cross-objection as certain observation made in the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) have larger ramification on the stand taken by the petitioner. The Tribunal disposed of the said proceeding without Page 2 of 6 interfering with the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the ball rolled into the domain of the assessing officer. The assessing officer disposed of the proceeding and assessed the tax excisable on the said alleged clandestine transaction entered into between the petitioner and the Company with regard to the allotment of the shares. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the competent authority which was fixed for hearing on diverse dates. 5. It is undeniable that the adjournments were sought, but equally the documents were also submitted before the authority by the petitioner and a date was fixed on 5th March, 2020. The revisional authority closed the hearing on the said date as the petitioner did not appear and subsequently, passed the impugned order on 21st April, 2020, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. According to the petitioner, he was personally present before the revisional authority, but the Presiding Officer was not physically present in the headquarters and perceiving that the hearing would not be conducted on the said date and the next date shall be intimated, the petitioner left the premises. The factum of being personally present on the date is vividly, lucidly and explicitly pleaded in paragraph-13 of the instant writ petition. Page 3 of 6 7. According to Mr. A. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the opposite parties-Department, the petitioner did not appear on 5th March, 2020 and the authority being perplexed with the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner, closed the hearing of the said proceeding and, subsequently, passed the order having found no material to interfere with the order of the assessing officer. 8. There appears to be a dissent on the factual matrix and it is difficult for the writ Court to believe or disbelieve the statements made by the respective parties. 9. Without delving to go into the veracity and/or genuineness of the statements made at the Bar disclosing the stand of the respective parties, we feel that a right of hearing is ingrained and inhered into a justice delivery system be it at the administrative or at the quasi judicial. The principle of natural justice is deeply enrouted and/or embedded as a constitutional ethos and, therefore, a person should not be punished or condemned without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner appears to be sanguine on the transactions and has also relied upon several documents in course of the proceedings and, therefore, the denial of an opportunity to explain or make submissions would run counter to the constitutional mandate. We further find from the narration of the facts emerged from the Page 4 of 6 pleading that though the hearing was closed on 5th March, 2020, but the impugned order came to be passed after more than one and half months and in the event the authority can wait for passing an order, he could have fixed another date for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions. 10. For the sake of the repetition, we once again make it clear that we are not believing or disbelieving either of the parties to the proceedings on the above factual score and deciding the instant writ petition solely on the ground that an opportunity of hearing should have been given by the authority before it proceeds to pass the order impugned in the instant writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21st April, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the revisional authority to decide the said revision petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. We, however, make it clear that the petitioner shall not indulge in delaying the disposal of the said revision petition and shall not ask for any adjournment unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. The revisional authority is requested to Page 5 of 6 decide the said petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a month from the date of communication of this order. 13. For abandoned precaution, we make it clear that none of the observations made hereinabove, either incidentally and/or accidentally, shall have any persuasive impact on the said revision petition and the authority shall take an independent decision in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Guin/PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Aug-2025 09:38:11 Page 6 of 6