Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Brindavan Properties Represented by its partner T. R. Rangarajan, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the assessment order bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031796367(1) dated 26.03.2021 passed by the respondent.)
1. Heard Mr.Anand Sashidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order of assessment dated 26.03.2021 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). The main challenge is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of affording of personal hearing by the authority prior to finalising the assessment.
3. The impugned assessment relates to assessment year 2018-19. Show cause notice containing draft assessment proposals was issued on 04.02.2021, to which, the petitioner replied promptly on 06.02.2021 along with supporting documents. On 22.02.2021, there was a specific request from the petitioner seeking personal hearing prior to finalisation of assessment.
4. There is no dispute on this position. In fact, the request for perso
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....
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 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.
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 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.
The failure to grant a personal hearing in complex assessments violates principles of natural justice as mandated by the Income Tax Act.
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 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....
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
