Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1106 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 143(3) read with section 260 - Penalty proceedings u/s 270A and 271AAC - personal hearing was rejected as there is no legal aspect to be heard and that the proposed additions are a matter of fact. - HELD THAT:- This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the use of the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(VIII) is not decisive. Where a discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority whose decision has civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the Respondent between the matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, the demand noticeand the penalty proceedings under Sections 270A and 271AAC of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to Respondent No.2 for a fresh decision, in accordance with law.
|