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

2025 Supreme(Del) 136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru Tejas Karia, JJ.
Marvy Outsourcing Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3701 of 2025 & CM APPL. 17304 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner:Mr. Mani Bhadra Jain, Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhvi Shukla, Advocates.

The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessment order erroneous.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 144B, 156, and 270A - Assessment order challenged for the Assessment Year 2023-24 - Order passed in violation of natural justice principles and deemed ex facie erroneous due to insufficient time for personal hearing - Petitioner granted less than 24 hours to prepare for hearing, violating reasonable opportunity standards. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case - In this case, the petitioner was not afforded such an opportunity, leading to the order being set aside. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 18.02.2025, claiming it was issued without adequate notice and was erroneous. The Revenue conceded the violation of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, thus the impugned order was set aside.

Issues: The main issues were whether the assessment order violated natural justice and whether it was ex facie erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide adequate time for a personal hearing constituted a breach of natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of the order.

Result: Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an assessment order dated 18.02.2025 [impugned order] passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] as well as the consequential proceedings including issuance of notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year [AY] 2023-24.

2. The petitioner assails the impugned order on two grounds. First, that it has been passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice. And second, that the impugned order is ex facie erroneous and the reasoning of the Assessing Officer [AO] is perverse.

3. Insofar as the contention that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes to the same.

4. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 02.12.2024 and the petitioner was called upon to respond by 08.12.2024. Subsequently, by an intimation letter dated 02.02.2025, the petitioner was granted a personal hearing on 03.02.2025 at 4:15 PM. The petitioner has produced the physical printout of the said intimation letter which indicates that the said letter was digitally signed by the Assessment Unit on 02.02.2025 at 23:06:51, that is, at 11:06 PM. Thus, the petitioner had less than twenty-four hours to make arrangement for the personal hearing.

5. It is obvious that the said intimation letter would have been accessed by the petitioner on the next date, that is on 03.02.2025, the date on which the personal hearing was scheduled.

6. Insofar as the petitioner’s contention that the order is ex facie erroneous, the same also appears merited, as noted by this court in the order dated 25.03.2025. However, since the petitioner was granted less than twenty-four hours for a personal hearing, we are unable to accept that the same would pass muster as a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Thus, the impugned order falls foul of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the above the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. We remand the matter to the Assessment Unit to consider it afresh in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard within a period of one week and the assessment order shall be passed not later than four weeks thereafter.

8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also stands disposed of.

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