The court established that personal hearing is a mandatory requirement in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the revenue.

2. Present petition has been filed to challenge the ex parte assessment order dated 23.03.2024 passed in the case of the petitioner under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for A.Y. 2022-23.

3. At the outset, objection has been raised as to existence of statutory alternative remedy of appeal. That has been met by learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of his submission that ex parte assessment order has been passed practically without allowing for any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner less so reasonable opportunity of hearing. Neither the petitioner was given enough time to furnish its written reply to the shown-cause notice dated 11.03.2024 nor it was granted any real opportunity to be heard during assessment proceedings. The first notice for assessment was issued to the petitioner through e-mail mode on 11.03.2024 fixing the date 15.03.2024. In view of short time granted, the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed. However, he moved an adjournment application on the next date i.e. 16.03.2024. On that application, the Assessing Officer fixed the next/second and the final date of hearing on 17.03.2024. That was a Sunday. It is in such circumstances that the Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order on 23.03.2024 without allowing for any real opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to participate in the assessment proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits, the assessment proceedings had been initiated earlier. The petitioner was participating in the same. At the fag end of the proceedings, the petitioner did not cooperate. Accordingly, the assessment order has been finalised. Statutory remedies are available to the petitioner against the assessment order, therefore, the petition may not be entertained.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, Section 144B of the Act [by virtue of sub- Section 6(vii) and (viii)] mandates opportunity of hearing to be given to the petitioner upon show-cause notice issued to show-cause why assessment may not be completed as proposed. Further, if at the time of submission of his reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee "requests" for opportunity of personal hearing, the same is necessary to be provided in terms of Section 144B(6)(viii). Reading of the two provisions does not suggest that grant of opportunity of personal hearing is optional at the discretion of the Assessing Officer. On the contrary in the context of rights in dispute before the Assessing Officer and under the Scheme of the Act, providing for opportunity of personal hearing appears to be the Rule and its waiver an exception to be exercised by the assessee. Wherever the assessee makes a specific request in terms of Section 144B(vii), that would be enforced on the Assessing Authority through National Faceless Assessment Centre in accordance with Section 144B(6)(viii). However, the provision cannot be read to mean that opportunity of personal hearing may be granted only where the assessee specifically requests for the same.

6. There is no warrant to interpret that the processual law prescribes that opportunity of personal hearing may not be granted by the Assessing Authority unless specifically requested for by the petitioner, in writing. To do that would be to give meaning to the word "request" used under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii), larger and much wider than intended by the legislature. Under the general Scheme of the Act, assessment orders are to be passed after giving opportunity to the assessee to present his case. To that extent, the revenue does not dispute the contention of the assessee and it does not claim a right to frame ex parte assessment orders. It contends, the opportunity for personal hearing is not inherent in the right to pa