9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is assessed to tax vide PAN No.ACAPM9587E under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed his returns on 29.09.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/-, after claiming exemption of Rs. 1,22,34,821/- under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his revised returns on 31.10.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/-. The assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act was completed on 21.04.2017 determining the assessed income at Rs. 3,99,40,410/-. Thereafter, the said assessment order dated 21.04.2017 was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupathi vide his orders F.No.263/Pr.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has not made out any, prima facie, case seeking interference of this court, and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 144B (7) (vii) and (ix) of the Act, which reads as under: "144B Faceless Assessment: (7) For the purposes of faceless assessment- (i) xxxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (v) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order or revised draft assessment order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the such draft or final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elecommunication application software, which supports video conferencing, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board. In the case on hand, the counter of the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that though a request is made by the petitioner for being heard personally through video conferencing, the same was not granted to him, but, however, it is contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It does not anywhere indicate that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard through video conference in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B (7) of the Act. It is a settled principle of law that no man should be condemned unheard and it is incumben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid finding given by this court was due to Revenue counsel not producing the standard procedure and process framed by the Revenue. It was further held that the Standard Operating Procedure for personal hearing through video conference under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 was issued by CBDT vide Circular F.No.Pr.CCIT/NeAC/SOP/2020-21, dated 23.11.2020 and that CBDT vide order F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-1, dated 31.03.2021 extended the Circulars/notifications issued under Faceless Assessment Scheme to the Faceless Assessment under Section 144B of the Act and therefore, the SOP contained in the circular dated 23.11.2020 was equally applicable to the proceedings under Section 144B of the Act also. In Piramal Enterprises Limited v. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Rules of natural justice are not embodied of such rules. It was held that two fundamental maxims of natural justice have now become deeply and indelibly ingrained in the common consciousness of mankind as pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially objectively and fairly. These twin principles are (i) audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the Courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. Its reach should not be narrowed and its applicability circumscribed......" In Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., v. Union of India and others (stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otected while granting personal hearing by either creating a blank screen or by decreasing the pixel/density/resolution. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the word "may" in Section 144B(viii) should be read as "must" or "shall" and requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the counsel, this court is of the view that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned assessment order in terms of Sections 143 (3) read with 263 read with 144B of the Income Tax, without affording an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing to the petitioner, though a specific request was made by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
