SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Samir Saran – Appellant
Versus
National Faceless Assessment Centre – Respondent
W.P.(C) 801 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Upvan Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr Sunil Agarwal, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondents.

Grant of personal hearing is a mandatory requirement under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, and failure to provide such a hearing can result in the setting aside of the assessment order.

Headnote:

Assessment Order - Income Tax Act - The court set aside the assessment order dated 29.12.2022 due to the failure to grant the petitioner a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to frame a fresh assessment order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard in person via video conferencing.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition challenged the assessment order dated 29.12.2022 and the notice of demand issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner had not been granted a personal hearing before the assessment order was passed.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing via video conferencing before framing a fresh assessment order.

Issues: Failure to grant a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: Grant of personal hearing is a mandatory requirement under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, and failure to provide such a hearing can result in the setting aside of the assessment order.

Final Decision: The assessment order dated 29.12.2022 was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing via video conferencing before framing a fresh assessment order.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 3109/2023

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 801/2023

2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Sunil Agarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

3. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Agarwal says that counter-affidavit is not required to be filed. Therefore, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal, at this stage itself.

4. This writ petition is directed against assessment order dated 29.12.2022 passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

4.1. Besides this, challenge is also being laid to the notice of demand of even date i.e., 29.12.2022, issued under Section 156 of the Act and the consequential proceedings initiated under the Act.

5. The record, as made available to the court, shows that a show cause notice dated 20.12.2022 was served on the petitioner/assessee proposing an upward variation in income chargeable to tax.

5.1. The record also shows that the petitioner/assessee had filed a reply dated 22.12.2022, wherein, inter alia, apart from his defence on merits, he had also sought a personal hearing in the matter.

6. It appears that personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner/assessee before passing the impugned assessment order. Undoubtedly, grant of personal hearing is a mandatory requirement under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Act.

7. In these circumstances, the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2022 is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame a fresh assessment order, albeit, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner/assessee of being heard in person.

7.1. To achieve this, the AO will issue a notice to the petitioner. The notice will set forth the date and time of the hearing and also provide a hyperlink to the petitioner to enable him to join the proceedings via video conferencing.

7.2. The aforesaid exercise will be completed at the earliest, though, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the instant judgment.

8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9. We may indicate that we have not examined the matter on merits and therefore, the order passed today will not impact the assessment proceedings on merits.

10. Parties will act, based on the digitally signed copies of the order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top