BHARAT LAKHOTIA V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WPT/51/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bharat Lakhotia, the petitioner, challenging various orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent orders under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the lack of a personal hearing, which the petitioner requested to be conducted via video conferencing as per the provisions of Section 144B(6)(vii)(viii). The court referenced a similar case, Rashmi Lakotia Vs. Union of India, to support the argument that the principles of natural justice require such an opportunity to be granted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746645 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rashmi Lakotia Vs. Union of India and others (WPT Nos.241/2022, Order dated 10.11.2022)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAO
• Keywords: Coercive Action; Demand notice; Impugned order; Natural Justice; Notice; Penalty notice; Personal hearing; Reassessment proceedings; Video conferencing
• Section: 147; 148; 274; 144B; 271AAC(1); 148A(d); 156; 226; 282A(1)

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:16316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 51 of 2025 1 - Bharat Lakhotia S/o Late Shri Dwarika Das Lakhotia, Aged About 58 Years, 67/4, Gurudwara Road, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, P.O. and P.S. Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin - 490020 Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 2 - Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001 3 - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bungalow No. 32/32 Bungalows, Amdi Nagar HUDCO, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 4 Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income-Tax Department, Through Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, NFAC North Block, New Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.04.08 14:48:44 +0530 2 S B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs : (i) To call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) To declare illegal and quash impugned order under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act {Annexure P/1) (colly)} and all proceedings flowing through said notice. (iii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned order passed under section 147 read with sec. 144B of the Income-tax Act and all the proceedings flowing through said order. (iv) To quash all the notice including demand notice issued under section 156, penalty notice issued under sections 274 read with section 271AAC(1) of the Income- tax Act. (v) To stay the effect and operation of impugned order and all consequential proceedings including penalty proceedings, recovery proceedings and direct the Respondents not to initiate any coercive action against petitioner till disposal of present petition. 3 (vi) To pass such other and/or further order and/or orders as the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the Assessment Year 2017-18, respondent No. 3 initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of the order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) with the approval of the specified authorities. However, he would submit that in the approval accorded, there is no signature of the competent authority as per Section 282 A(1) of the Act. He would further submit that the notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer but the Assessment Order has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Officer. He would further submit that though the petitioner has made specific demand under Section 144B (6) (vii) (viii) of the Act for personal hearing through video conferencing or video telephony, but no such opportunity has been granted to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. For the sake brevity, the said provision is reproduced hereunder : 144B(6) (vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the income or loss determination proposal or the draft 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 such income or loss determination proposal, the assessee or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral 4 submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority of the relevant unit; (viii) where the request for personal hearing has been received, the income-tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing, through National Faceless Assessment Centre, which shall be conducted exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony, to the extent technologically feasible, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board; 3. Learned counsel would further submit that in the matter of Rashmi Lakotia Vs. Union of India and others (WPT Nos.241/2022, Order dated 10.11.2022) {Neutral Citation No. 2022:CGHC:25449}, while dealing with the similar issue, this Court has taken a view that the principles of natural justice is required to be followed and an opportunity of personal hearing ought to be granted to the petitioner therein under Section 144B (6) (vii) (viii) of the Act, therefore, the matter was remitted to the competent authority for deciding the same afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that though various opportunities have been granted to the petitioner, but he has not made specific demand for personal hearing. He would draw attention of this Court towards para 2 of the impugned order, which shows that various opportunities have been granted to the petitioner. However, learned counsel admits that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner through video conferencing or video telephony. 5 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties particularly considering the fact that there is a specific mandate under Section 144B (6) (vii) (viii) of the Act for providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, this Court is of the view that an opportunity be afforded to the petitioner in respect of the assessment under challenge in the present writ petition and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the authority may pass a fresh order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the assessment made by the Assessing Authority. The concerned Authority would be free to take an appropriate decision after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, it is observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds raised in the present writ petition before the Assessing Officer, if so advised. Sd/- ( Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna "