Assotech Realty Private Limited V. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi and ANR

W.P.(C)/6183/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Assotech Realty Private Limited challenging an assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre Delhi. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was issued without considering their reply and without providing a requested virtual personal hearing, violating the faceless scheme and principles of natural justice as outlined in Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply and documents, negating the need for a personal hearing. The court referenced a similar case, Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India, to emphasize the mandatory nature of providing a personal hearing when requested.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687674 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KUNAL SHARM A; ZEHRA KHAN; SHUBHENDU BHATTACHARYYA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMOL SINHA; ASHVINI KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless scheme; Natural Justice; Penalty proceedings; Virtual hearing
• Section: 143(3); 144B; 144B(7)(vii); 144B(7)(viii); 144B(9)

Judgement Text

"W.P.(C) 6183/2021 Page 1 of 3 $~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6183/2021 & CM APPL. 19582/2021 ASSOTECH REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Amol Sinha & Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Advs. versus NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC with Ms.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and Mr.Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Adv % Date of Decision: 21st February, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVING CHAWLA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 22 : nd 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned assessment order has been passed without considering the reply furnished by the Petitioner on 09 April, 2021 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. th March, 2021 and without affording an opportunity of `Personal Hearing' through virtual mode to the Petitioner, even though the Petitioner had requested for a virtual hearing in its reply dated 09th March, This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000698 W.P.(C) 6183/2021 Page 2 of 3 2021. He states that the impugned order is in gross violation of the faceless scheme enshrined in Section 144B of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment to be non-est in terms of section 144B (9) of the Act. 3. He states that Respondent No.1 without granting an opportunity of personal hearing contrary to the provisions of section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act chose to pass the impugned assessment order dated 22nd 4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that as the petitioner had been given an opportunity to file a reply as well as documents, there was no need to give a personal hearing. April, 2021 under Sections 143(3) and 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 4,95,52,897/- against the returned income of Rs. 6,82,06,650/- resulting into total assessed income of Rs. 11,77,59,547/- and the consequential notice of demand, and the Respondents further issued a notice for initiating penalty proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.14528/2021 dated 14th January, 2022, 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, the 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 This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000698 W.P.(C) 6183/2021 Page 3 of 3 law by way of the Circular dated 23rd 6. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order dated 22 November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. nd 7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition and application stand disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. April, 2021 passed under Sections 143(3) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as notices for demand and penalty for the assessment year 2018-19 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No. 2 for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 21, 2022/rv This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000698 "