Faceless Assessment Order Set Aside for Lack of Personal Hearing, Emphasizing Procedural Fairness

The Court set aside the assessment order passed under Faceless Assessment due to the absence of a personal hearing despite a valid request by the Petitioner, citing the mandatory nature of the provision under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded for compliance, directing the assessing officer to schedule a hearing and issue a fresh assessment order within three months. The decision focused on procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of providing a personal hearing as required by law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Faceless Assessment for lack of personal hearing as requested by the Petitioner.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the assessment order passed under Faceless Assessment, citing the absence of a personal hearing despite a request made in accordance with Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reference was made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court mandating a personal hearing in similar circumstances. The Senior Standing Counsel accepted notice and sought instructions on providing a hearing at a later stage. The Court directed no coercive action against the Petitioner until the next date. The Petitioner's request for a hearing was acknowledged, and it was noted that the provision for personal hearing under Section 144B(7)(vii) is mandatory, not merely directory.

The Court emphasized that the authority must provide a personal hearing upon request, which was not disputed in this case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing a personal hearing. The assessing officer was directed to schedule the hearing at least one week in advance, either physically or virtually. A fresh assessment order was to be passed within three months, with the Petitioner retaining the right to seek remedies if aggrieved. The Court clarified that its decision was based solely on the procedural error of non-compliance with Section 144B(7)(vii) and did not address the case's merits.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and an urgent certified copy of the order was to be issued as per rules. The judgment focused on upholding the mandatory nature of providing a personal hearing under the Income Tax Act, ensuring procedural fairness in the assessment process under the Faceless Assessment scheme.

---