Court grants partial relief, quashes Annexures, orders personal hearing under Faceless Scheme

The Court allowed the petition in part, quashing certain Annexures and directing another personal hearing to be conducted in line with Faceless Scheme parameters. The decision aimed to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case effectively. The judgment clarified the petitioner's ability to file further objections and permitted authorities to proceed with recovery and penalty actions pending assessment proceedings, emphasizing adherence to Faceless Scheme parameters for procedural fairness and legal compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and continuation post-amendment.
2. Denial of due opportunity during personal hearing through video conference.
3. Assessment Order validity and consequential computation.
4. Compliance with Faceless Scheme parameters.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and its continuation post-amendment from 01.04.2021. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the decision on objections, the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022, and the Demand Notices issued. The main grievance was the denial of a fair opportunity during the proceedings.

2. The petitioner contended that despite logging in for the scheduled personal hearing through video conference on time, the hearing did not commence as per the Assessing Officer's opinion. The petitioner uploaded a response at 11:45 a.m., but the officer claimed non-participation. However, the petitioner provided evidence contradicting this claim, stating they were logged in until 11:50 a.m. The Assessing Officer's assertion that most screenshots were before the scheduled time was deemed hyper-technical by the Court.

3. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer's decision was flawed in dismissing the petitioner's participation based on technical grounds. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the impugned Annexures A to E, and directing another personal hearing to be conducted in line with the Faceless Scheme parameters. This decision aimed to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case effectively.

4. The judgment clarified that the petitioner could file further objections, and the authorities were permitted to proceed with recovery and penalty actions pending the outcome of the assessment proceedings. By emphasizing adherence to the Faceless Scheme parameters, the Court ensured procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements throughout the assessment process.

---