Income tax assessment order set aside for denying personal hearing despite written request under Section 144

The Madras HC set aside an income tax assessment order due to violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner was denied personal hearing despite requesting it in written submissions. The revenue department argued the petitioner failed to activate the required website link for personal hearing. The HC rejected this contention, holding that failure to activate a link cannot constitute a fatal flaw preventing effective hearing opportunity. The court directed reassessment after providing adequate opportunity, allowing the petitioner four weeks to file additional written submissions and mandating personal hearing within four weeks thereafter.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Lack of opportunity for personal hearing.
3. Insufficient time for compliance with show cause notices.
4. Procedural irregularities in the e-assessment scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The common grievance across the writ petitions is the violation of the principles of natural justice during the framing of assessments. The petitioners consistently argued that they were not provided with an adequate opportunity for personal hearing despite specific requests. The court emphasized that any legitimate request for a personal hearing must be honored by the authorities, irrespective of whether the petitioner activated the dedicated link for such a hearing. The court found that the respondents' failure to provide personal hearings constituted a violation of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.

2. Lack of Opportunity for Personal Hearing:
In several cases, the petitioners highlighted that they had expressly requested a personal hearing in their written submissions, but no such opportunity was granted. For instance, in W.P.No.12760 of 2021, the petitioner sought a personal hearing via written submissions, but the request was ignored. Similarly, in W.P.No.12994 of 2021, the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was not honored, leading to the court setting aside the assessment order. The court consistently held that a failure to provide a personal hearing when requested is a significant procedural flaw.

3. Insufficient Time for Compliance with Show Cause Notices:
The court noted instances where the time provided for compliance with show cause notices was inadequate. For example, in W.P.No.13025 of 2021, the petitioner was given only one day to respond to a detailed show cause notice, which was deemed clearly inadequate. The court held that proper opportunity must be afforded to the petitioner to respond to such notices and set aside the impugned orders due to insufficient time for compliance.

4. Procedural Irregularities in the E-Assessment Scheme:
The court identified several procedural irregularities in the implementation of the e-assessment scheme. For instance, in W.P.No.13069 of 2021, the petitioner faced confusion and delays during the scheduled personal hearing, which was not conducted as promised. The court found that the procedural flaws, including the failure to conduct personal hearings and the inadequate handling of adjournment requests, constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and directions were issued to rectify the procedural lapses.

Conclusion:
The court allowed all the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders due to the identified procedural flaws and violations of natural justice. The respondents were directed to provide adequate opportunities for personal hearings, enable the petitioners to upload additional written submissions, and follow proper procedures in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines and ensuring fair hearings in the e-assessment process.

---