Suvidhi Udyog Private Limited V. National Faceless Assessment Centre

CWP/8976/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Suvidhi Udyog Private Limited challenging the National Faceless Assessment Centre and others over an assessment order passed without providing an opportunity for a virtual consultation (VC) as requested by the petitioner. The core legal issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing after requesting a VC and whether the assessment order could be passed without such a hearing. The court found that despite previous opportunities being given, the specific request for a VC was not adequately addressed, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798332 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Hearing; Natural Justice; VC opportunity
• Section: 144B

Judgement Text

"CWP-8976-2022 105+234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SUVIDHI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: M for the Mr. Yogesh Putney, for the respondents/Revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-18278-CWP For the reasons stated in the application for extension of time, six months further time is granted to Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Main case 1. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to being heard after a request for VC is made for passed the assessment order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 2022 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUVIDHI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CWP-2024 For the reasons stated in the application for extension of time, six months further time is granted to the respondents. Registry to place the same at appropriate place. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to being heard after a request for VC is for the desired date, and whether the respondents could have passed the assessment order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-18278-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-8976-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Sr. Standing Counsel For the reasons stated in the application for extension of time, the respondents. Registry to place the same at appropriate place. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to being heard after a request for VC is and whether the respondents could have passed the assessment order without giving the petitioner an in/and (O&M) .2024 Petitioner s The short question involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to being heard after a request for VC is and whether the respondents could have passed the assessment order without giving the petitioner an MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.12 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8976-2022 2. Law is very settled that once an application is moved for seeking personal heari the basic principles of natural justice, as rights of an individual are affected. 3. The case of the respondents is that earlier several opportunities had been given to the petitioner the proceedings. 4. Although we find that the petitioner was given earlier opportunities which he did not avail of, at the same time request for giving opportunity of being heard, and also requested for VC for 27.03.2022 proceedings (Annexure P 5. Considering the said request, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer (AO) to have provided the requisite VC opportunity to the petitioner, and without giving him opportunity of being heard and explaining the situa 6. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated going into the merits of the assessment order, and direct the AO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is made clear that the AO shall in no manner be affected by whatever consideration the contentions of the petitioner, which he may place while being given an opportunity of hearing. 2022 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 Law is very settled that once an application is moved for seeking personal hearing, the same should be allowed the basic principles of natural justice, as rights of an individual are affected. The case of the respondents is that earlier several opportunities had been given to the petitioner, and therefore the attempt is only to delay the proceedings. gh we find that the petitioner was given earlier opportunities which he did not avail of, at the same time request for giving opportunity of being heard, and also requested for VC for 27.03.2022 as is apparent from reply filed during proceedings (Annexure P-2). Considering the said request, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer (AO) to have provided the requisite VC opportunity to the petitioner, and without giving him opportunity of being heard and explaining the situation, the assessment order stands vitiated. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated going into the merits of the assessment order, and direct the AO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the tioner. It is made clear that the AO shall in no manner be affected by whatever order he has earlier consideration the contentions of the petitioner, which he may place while being given an opportunity of hearing. Law is very settled that once an application is moved for seeking ng, the same should be allowed in order to comply with the basic principles of natural justice, as rights of an individual are The case of the respondents is that earlier several opportunities had and therefore the attempt is only to delay gh we find that the petitioner was given earlier opportunities which he did not avail of, at the same time, he had expressed his request for giving opportunity of being heard, and also requested for as is apparent from reply filed during assessment Considering the said request, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer (AO) to have provided the requisite VC opportunity to the petitioner, and without giving him opportunity of being heard and tion, the assessment order stands vitiated. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 22.03.2022 without going into the merits of the assessment order, and direct the AO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the tioner. It is made clear that the AO shall in no manner be affected earlier passed, and shall take into consideration the contentions of the petitioner, which he may place while being given an opportunity of hearing. Law is very settled that once an application is moved for seeking ly with the basic principles of natural justice, as rights of an individual are The case of the respondents is that earlier several opportunities had and therefore the attempt is only to delay gh we find that the petitioner was given earlier opportunities expressed his request for giving opportunity of being heard, and also requested for assessment Considering the said request, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer (AO) to have provided the requisite VC opportunity to the petitioner, and without giving him opportunity of being heard and without going into the merits of the assessment order, and direct the AO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the tioner. It is made clear that the AO shall in no manner be affected take into consideration the contentions of the petitioner, which he may place MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.12 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8976-2022 7. The vires 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are accordingly disposed of. 8. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is partially allowed. 9. Said exercise shall be conducted 10. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. November 11, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2022 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 vires of the retrospective omission of sub 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are not pressed at this stage. The same are accordingly disposed of. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is partially allowed. Said exercise shall be conducted within a period of three months. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No retrospective omission of sub-section (9) of section are not pressed at this stage. The same With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is partially allowed. within a period of three months. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of section are not pressed at this stage. The same MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.12 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "