Income Tax Department Should Allow Personal Hearings Through the National Faceless Assessment Centre on the Assessee’s Request: Delhi High Court
‘Case title: Global Vectra Helicorp Limited vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment
Case no.: W.P.(C) NO. 5912 OF 2024
Dated on: 26th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner has flied the present petition impugning the assessment order dated 27.03.2024 (hereinafter the impugned assessment order) passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter the Act). Additionally, the petitioner also impugns the demand raised under section 156 of the Act pursuant to the impugned assessment order in respect of assessment year 2022-23 (hereinafter the impugned Assessment year). Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined the challenges in the present petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had not been provided sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 05.03.2024 (hereinafter the SCN), inter alia, proposing certain additions to the income returned and calling upon the petitioner to respond to the same. The SCN spans over 10 pages and raises various grounds. The fact that such an attempt has been made on 11.03.2024 indicates that the petitioner was aware of the procedure and despite the same, no request was made by the petitioner through the online mode.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Mr. Kapoor submits that despite the wide nature of allegations and issued raised in the SCN, the petitioner was called upon to submit a response by 17:24 hours on 09.03.2024. He states that the time provided was extremely short considering that there were two holidays after 05.03.2024. He also referred to the standard operating procedure (hereinafter SOP) dated 03.08.2022 framed by the national faceless assessment centre, Delhi which requires that at least 7DAYS Time be provided to the assessee for responding to the show cause notice. He submits that notwithstanding the limited time available for filing the response, the petitioner did submit a response within stipulated time. The petitioner protested against the limited time provided to respond to the SCN and submitted that if the assessing officer require any further information, the petitioner be provided additional time to furnish the same. Further submits that an attempt to upload such a request online was made on 11.03.2024 but the online portal did not accept the same. He submits once a request for personal hearing is made, it is obligatory on the part of Assessing officer to provide the same.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel submits that the controverts the contentions advanced by Mr. Kapoor on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that since the request for a personal hearing was required to be made online. He further submits that if the said request is not made in the manner as provided, the assessing officer cannot be faulted with for not acceding to such request. However, he is unable to substantiate the said contention with reference to any provision of the act and the rules and regulations made therein.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income tax act 1961: where a request for personal hearing received, the income tax authority of the relevant unit shall allow hearing through the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Section 143(3) of Income Tax act 1961: the scrutiny assessment thoroughly reviews your Income tax return.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The decision further delved into the provisions of Section 144B(6)(vii) and 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which outline the procedure for granting a personal hearing in tax assessments. The court elucidated that upon receipt of a request for a personal hearing, the relevant authority must allow for such a hearing through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, to be conducted exclusively via video conferencing or video telephony .In light of the petitioner’s submission and the statutory provisions cited, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, with a directive to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to be heard through video conferencing, as mandated by law. In the present case, the act expressly provided for the concerned unit to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contention that the impugned assessment order falls foul of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement of affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
