SRI ACHALARAM BORANA V. ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/11566/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Achalaram Borana, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer at the National E Assessment Centre and other related officers. The petitioner argued that he was not given a fair opportunity to participate in a scheduled personal hearing via video conference due to the late provision of the video conference link, which was only shared at 6:50 PM on the day of the hearing, after the hearing was supposed to have occurred. The court examined the digital signing time of the notice and the procedural lapses in providing the hearing link, leading to the decision to set aside the assessment order and remand the case for a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754490 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Video Conference
• Section: 11566/2021

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.11566/2021 (T-IT) Between: Sri Achalaram Borana S/o Kheema Ramji Borana Aged 70 years Marshal Pharmaceuticals No.708, 10th A Main Road, 34th Cross, Jayanagar 4th Block Bengaluru - 560 011. … Petitioner (By Sri M.V. Seshachala, Advocate) And: 1. Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer National E Assessment Centre No.412-413, 1st Floor, Opp. Metro Pillar No.793 Dwarka Mor, New Delhi - 110 059. 2. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(3) BMTC Building Koramangala Bengaluru - 560 095. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, BMTC Building 2 Koramangala Bengaluru - 560 095. … Respondents (By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the R-1 vide Annexure-G in respect of the Assessment Year 2018-19 and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the assessment order dated 22.04.2021, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-G with respect to the assessment year 2018-19 on the sole ground that the opportunity of personal hearing as was afforded could not be made use of in the absence of necessary video conference link being shared with the petitioner in time. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner was permitted to make use of the opportunity of personal hearing to be held through video conference on 15.04.2021 and at paragraph No.2 of the notice at Annexure-D, video 3 conference link was stated to have been shared. However, it is pointed out that the said notice was digitally signed as is evident from the notice itself in the printed matter on the bottom of Annexure-D. It is pointed out that the petitioner could not avail of the benefit of personal hearing as the said notice was in fact digitally signed only at 6.50 in the evening on 15.04.2021. 3. It is further pointed out that as per the assessment order at Annexure-G at paragraph No.3, it is observed that though an opportunity for hearing through video conference was accorded to the assessee on 15.04.2021 neither the assessee attended the hearing through video conference nor did he seek adjournment. Accordingly, it is pointed out that as regards to the opportunity of personal hearing through video conference afforded on 15.04.2021, in light of the link not being shared and also notice itself being digitally signed only at 6.50 in the evening on 15.04.2021, the question of personal 4 hearing through video conference on 15.04.2021 never took place. 4. It is noticed that as regards to the personal hearing through video conference on 15.04.2021, notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 14.04.2021 fixing the date as 15.04.2021. However, it is pointed out that the assessee had made a request on 14.04.2021 seeking for adjournment to 28.04.2021 and that no order was passed on the motion for adjournment. The Assessing Officer ought to have either rejected the adjournment application making it clear that the assessee was required to appear on 15.04.2021 or ought to have adjourned the matter after accepting the adjournment motion. In the present case without passing any order on the motion for adjournment, proceedings were sought to be proceeded with on 15.04.2021. 5. In light of the notice at Annexure-D and noticing its contents including that it was digitally signed only at 6.50 in the evening, question of the assessee having 5 attended the proceedings and availing the opportunity of personal hearing through video conference on 15.04.2021 was not a possibility. The details at Annexure-D cannot be controverted in light of the details of digital signature as pointed out above. Accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principle of natural justice as opportunity of personal hearing through video conference though stated to have been offered in fact could not be availed of by the petitioner, in the absence of sharing the video conference link in time as the digital signature in the said notice itself was affixed only at 6.50 p.m. on 15.04.2021. 6. Accordingly, the assessment order at Annexure- G is set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner through video conference once again and conclude the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law. The assessee to co-operate with the conclusion of proceedings. 6 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "