Karnataka HC Permits Writ Petition as Tax Refund Denied Without Hearing Opportunity

The Income Tax refund was rejected without providing a chance to hear the Karnataka High Court ruled that. The Court held that the authority is required to consider the time available u/s 163(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The taxpayer Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited, contested the validity of the impugned Assessment Order computation sheet, and demand notice, and has also aimed for a grant of income tax refund that is legally owed.

The notice has been contested by the applicant, providing that the SCN has asked to provide a response by 26.04.2024 which was not enough duration and prejudice has been caused, even after the response was created within the short period made available, as the response was made rashly and subsequently.

It was provided that the other response has come to be filed dated 28.04.2024. As a very short time was available it was indeed rashly filed. It also furnished that in the absence of the hearing, the order has been passed within 2 days post response at the assessment order shall glance the hurried manner where the order was passed.

It was furnished that the applicant was not having a personal hearing to provide the clarification in pursuance to its answer in the absence of these hearings, the applicant has been prejudiced.

For the respondents, the counsel l Sri E.I.Sanmati, appeared and furnished that the response has been created in writing and when that were to be so then the argument that there has been a breach of the principles of the natural justice could not be regarded. The reply in writing has been made in the said time asked via the Revenue and the first such reply was made dated 26.04.2024 and upon following chance, another reply was made dated 28.04.2024.

Read Also: Karnataka HC Dismisses Criminal Proceedings Pertaining to Alleged Forged ITR with Fake CA Seal

Within a lesser duration furnishing the reply could be construed to be the reply filed to attain the timeline and in the matter of these replies filed within a lesser duration, the prejudice contention is of the insufficient time to make a response and the absence of chance of personal hearing to clarify, the taxpayer stated.

It was given that the applicant might be allowed to attain the chance of a personal hearing to elaborate his response and in the case of the asked for additional clarification, the applicant might be reserved the freedom to provide the additional response or deliver the documents.

It was noted that the applicant’s argument needs acceptance as the process of consideration of the response could not be hurried under the due date for the finish of the assessment which in the existing matter was dated 30.04.2024.

A single bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav mentioned that the authority should remark on the time available u/s 163(6) of the Income Tax law, to prevent the passing of an order at the fag end, which has rendered prejudice to the taxpayer.