Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Pico Capital Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax Circle 8(2)(1) & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties
3. The challenge in this petition is to the assessment order dated26 March 2024 and notice dated 31 March 2023 disposing of objectionsunder Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. At the outset, we clarify that we are not considering the challenge to the notice dated 31 March 2023, but we propose to consider the challenge to the assessment order dated 26 March 2024 on the ground that it was made in breach of the principles of natural justice.
5. The Petitioner, in reply to the show cause notice, had explicitly sought for a personal hearing. There is no dispute on this aspect.
6. However, the impugned order in paragraph 11 records thefollowing:-
“Now, the assessee has asked for video conferencing, which is not required because 'time and again' the objections were removed properly and the assessee was also show-caused for which it was duly stated that the carry forward losses of amalgamating companies are not set off during the year and i.e. why there is no escapement of income. It is again bro
The court emphasized the necessity of granting a personal hearing when requested, highlighting the importance of natural justice in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of granting a personal hearing when requested, highlighting the importance of natural justice in legal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right of the petitioner to a personal hearing under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the requirement for the ....
The obligation of the respondent to consider the request for grant of personal hearing under Section 144B (7) and the violation of the principle of natural justice led to setting aside the assessment....
The court emphasized the obligation of the revenue to consider the request for a personal hearing and to frame standards, procedures, and processes for approving such requests under Section 144B(7) o....
The court ruled that failure to provide a personal hearing in faceless assessment violated principles of natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of the assessment order and remanding the mat....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee as per the provisions of Section 144B (7) and the mandatory proced....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice, including the right to a personal hearing, must be adhered to in the assessment proceedings under the Incom....
The failure to grant a personal hearing during assessments constitutes a violation of natural justice, mandating the setting aside of the impugned orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
