High Court addresses challenge to Faceless Assessment order, grants interim relief, emphasizes procedural fairness

The High Court of Orissa addressed a challenge to an assessment order under the Faceless Assessment scheme, where the petitioner sought a personal hearing as per the Income Tax Act. The court issued notice, acknowledging the need to consider the request for a hearing and implement a similar Delhi High Court order. An interim order was granted to prevent coercive action until the next hearing, with parties allowed to use a court order printout due to COVID-19. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness, the right to be heard, and a balanced approach to justice, ensuring due process and legal compliance.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to assessment order under Faceless Assessment for lack of personal hearing.

The judgment pertains to a challenge against an assessment order issued under the Faceless Assessment scheme, where the petitioner contended that despite requesting a personal hearing as per Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no such hearing was provided. The petitioner relied on a judgment from the Delhi High Court in a similar case, where a mandamus was issued to afford a personal hearing. The High Court of Orissa issued notice in the matter, and the Senior Standing Counsel accepted the notice, indicating the need to seek instructions on affording a hearing at this stage and the implementation of the Delhi High Court's order. The case was listed for further proceedings on a specified date.

Additionally, an interim application was filed, stating that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner based on the impugned assessment order until the next date of hearing. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, the parties were permitted to use a printout of the court's order from the website as a certified copy, following the prescribed guidelines issued by the court.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of lack of a personal hearing in a Faceless Assessment scenario, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard. The court's decision to issue notice and consider the petitioner's request for a hearing demonstrated a commitment to ensuring due process and adherence to legal requirements, as exemplified by the reference to a similar case from the Delhi High Court. The interim order further safeguarded the petitioner from immediate adverse consequences pending further proceedings, reflecting a balanced approach in the administration of justice.

---