TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment order set aside for 2019-20 due to lack of hearing. Importance of natural justice highlighted.</h1> <h3>Jagjeet Singh Gujral Versus Union of India And 2 Others</h3> The court set aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2019-20 due to a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted a ... National Faceless Assessment - Non granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - deficit in essential procedural compliance - HELD THAT:- Issuance of first notice dated 25.09.2021 is corroborated from the assessment order itself. The first date of hearing fixed was also 27.09.2021. The request for personal hearing clearly appears to have been acknowledged by the respondent vide communication dated 27.09.2021 referred to above. Yet, the assessment order itself does not indicate, in any manner that opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. The assessment order passed on 30.09.2021 itself corroborates the assesse's contention that the same was passed in hurry without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Whatever be the reason for opportunity of hearing being denied to the petitioner and though it may be true that there may be some technical reason for the same, nevertheless, in the context of the assessment proceedings it was imperative on part of the respondents to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner where facts were disputed and the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply. Even otherwise once the petitioner had specifically asked to be granted opportunity of personal hearing by e-mail communication and once that request had been acknowledged by the respondent-authorities, there survived no reason to deny such opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the request for filing counter affidavit has been denied. The impugned assessment order is found to be deficit in essential procedural compliance.Respondent No. 2 may now intimate to the petitioner a fresh date of personal hearing in the matter. Issues involved:Challenge to assessment order for assessment year 2019-20; Violation of natural justice in passing the assessment order without granting opportunity of hearing.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 for the assessment year 2019-20, alleging a violation of natural justice. The assessment proceedings were conducted by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner received the first notice on 25.09.2021 calling for a response to the Draft Assessment order, with a response deadline of 27.09.2021. Despite submitting a reply through electronic mode on the due date, and requesting a personal hearing, the petitioner did not receive any further communication before being served with the assessment order on 30.09.2021. The court noted that the assessment order was passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, which was acknowledged by the respondent authorities. The court emphasized the importance of granting a hearing when facts are disputed, especially when the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply. The lack of opportunity for a hearing was deemed a violation of essential procedural compliance and natural justice.The court refused the respondent's request for time to file a counter affidavit, as the facts were not in dispute. The court found that the issuance of the first notice and the acknowledgment of the request for a personal hearing were evident from the record. Despite any technical reasons, the court held that it was imperative for the respondents to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, especially considering the detailed response submitted by the petitioner. The court highlighted that once the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was acknowledged, there was no valid reason to deny such an opportunity. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned assessment order and directed the respondent to intimate a fresh date for a personal hearing to the petitioner and proceed with the assessment in accordance with the law. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, granting relief to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
