Smt. Harsha Bhavesh Patel V. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2)

WP/8584/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Harsha Bhavesh Patel, the petitioner, who challenged the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner contested the notice issued for reopening the assessment, the rejection of her objections, and the subsequent assessment order. The core issue revolved around the alleged denial of a due opportunity for a personal hearing, which the petitioner claimed was not properly conducted as she logged in on time but the hearing did not commence as scheduled. The court found merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the personal hearing and directed a re-assessment in line with the Faceless Scheme parameters.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812989 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Notice Quash; Personal hearing; Video conferencing
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.8584/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN : SMT. HARSHA BHAVESH PATEL W/O SRI BHAVESH PATEL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4/10, OOP BPL, HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI. S, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP. BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR E RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI -110 003. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) (2) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU - 560 095. ... RESPONDENTS 2 (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 31.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEARING DIN & NOTICE NO ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032115885(1) HEREIN MAKRED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY R-1 REJECTING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEARING DIN & LETTER NO. ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1041053901(1)HEREIN MAKRED AS ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1042114602(1) HEREIN MAKRED AS ANNEXURE-C. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner has called in question the initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the continuation thereof after the amendment with effect from 01.04.2021, the decision on the petitioner’s objections on 19.03.2022, the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 and the consequential computation and the Demand Notices 3 (Annexure-A to E). The petitioner’s grievance apart from certain issues relating to the jurisdiction and other grounds, is the denial of due opportunity. Therefore, the petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of Sri S.Annamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondents. It is undisputed that the petitioner was issued with letter dated 29.03.2022 intimating the schedule of personal hearing through video conference. The personal hearing was scheduled to be held on 30.03.2022 at 11:30 a.m. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner logged in well in time and continued to be logged in beyond 11:30 a.m. but the scheduled hearing did not commence. The petitioner has uploaded response at 11:45 a.m. Notwithstanding the same, the assessee has opined that the petitioner did not participate in the scheduled personal hearing. 4 The Assessing Officer’s order in this regard reads as follows: “8.1 The assessee has sought personal hearing through video conferencing which was scheduled on 30.03.2022 at 11:30 AM for 30 minutes and intimated the assessee accordingly. The video conferencing was started at 11:28 AM through URL provided by the system and ended at 12:02 PM. But the assessee has not attended the same in the given time. However, the assessee has sent screen shots after completion of the scheduled video conferencing and sought rescheduled video conferencing which is not possible as time barring matter is involved and the assessment is going to be barred by 31.03.2022. Further from perusal of the screenshots provided by the assessee it is noticed that most of these are before 11:30 M i.e. scheduled time for the Video Conferencing.” The letter of intimation and the response immediately thereafter (as per Annexure-J2) indicate that the petitioner had indeed logged in well in time and continued to be logged in until 11:50 a.m. As regards the petitioner’s grievance that the personal hearing was 5 a non-starter, the Assessing Officer has perfunctorily opined that the screenshots relied upon by the petitioner are for the period prior to 11:30 a.m. There cannot be a hyper technical approach, especially with the petitioner placing on record the response at 11:50 a.m., which is not contradicted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must succeed on this limited ground with opportunity to the respondents to extend another personal hearing to the petitioner in accordance with Faceless Scheme parameters. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part. The impugned Annexures – A to E are quashed leaving open all questions for decision by the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer another opportunity as aforesaid inline with the Faceless Scheme parameters. 6 It is further clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file further objections and the authorities shall be at liberty to ensure proceedings for recovery and penalty subject to the outcome of the assessment proceedings. Sd/- JUDGE RB "