Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Mitesh Surana – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Nungambakkam, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031020916 (1) dated 26.02.2021 on the file of the respondent No.2 relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19 and quash the same for being ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and in violation to the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 notified vide Notification No.61/2019/F.No.370149/154/2019-TPL dated 12.09.2019 with further direction to grant opportunity for personal hearing before passing the fresh orders.)
1. The petitioner is an individual, who has challenged an order of assessment for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on the ground that the assessment is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice apart from being in gross violation of e-assessment Scheme, 2019 notified under Notification No.S.O.3264(E) [No.61/2019 (F.No.370149/154/2019-TPL)] dated 12.09.2019, amended by Notification S.O.2745 (E) [No.370149/154/2019-TPL] dated 13.08.2020. As a consequence, he prays that an opportunity be granted by the Assessing Authority for personal hearing
The word 'may' in the e-assessment Scheme must be read as 'shall', making it mandatory for the authority to afford an effective opportunity of hearing prior to finalizing the assessment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'may' in a notification should be interpreted in context, and in this case, it was held to be mandatory, requiring the authority t....
Failure to grant an opportunity of personal hearing as required under Section 144B(7) constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure under the Faceless Asses....
The court held that failure to grant a personal hearing, when requested, violates principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment order invalid under Section 144B.
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 court emphasized the importance of granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as required by Section 144B(7) of the Income Tax Act, and held that the failure to do so violated the principl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing before concluding the assessment, in accordance with principles of natur....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing adequate time for response in assessment proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 must grant proper and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to respond to the show....
The principle established is that the opportunity for personal hearing, as sought for by the assessee, should be provided by the assessing authority prior to finalizing the assessment.
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
