Court rules in favor of petitioner, orders fresh proceedings due to lack of personal hearing compliance.

The Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the revenue should have granted a personal hearing as requested, in compliance with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order and subsequent proceedings for AY 2018-2019 were set aside due to the lack of framework for dealing with personal hearing requests. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the system, directing the revenue to proceed afresh if permissible by law. The writ petition and related application were disposed of, with the case papers to be archived.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order and consequential proceedings for AY 2018-2019; Request for personal hearing denied by revenue; Compliance with statutory scheme under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 28.04.2021 and subsequent proceedings for AY 2018-2019, seeking various reliefs including quashing of the assessment order, prohibition on its operation, and stay on collection of disputed demand. The petitioner contended that despite requesting a personal hearing due to the complexity of the matter, the revenue did not grant the same, alleging a violation of Section 144B of the Act.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned assessment order was contrary to the statutory scheme of Section 144B and that non-accordance of a personal hearing rendered the assessment proceedings non-est. The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, contended that the provision for a personal hearing was discretionary, not mandatory, and multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner to respond.

3. The Court noted that the petitioner consistently requested a personal hearing both before and after the issuance of show-cause notices, emphasizing the complexity of the matter. The provision in Section 144B(7)(vii) allows an assessee to seek a personal hearing if income is varied, indicating an obligation on the revenue to consider such requests.

4. It was observed that no standards or procedures were in place for dealing with requests for personal hearings, highlighting a lack of framework for compliance with Section 144B. Consequently, the Court held that the revenue should have granted a personal hearing to the petitioner, and failure to do so necessitated setting aside the impugned orders.

5. The Court directed that if the law permits, the revenue may proceed afresh in the matter, and emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the system, irrespective of statutory provisions. The writ petition and related application were disposed of accordingly, with the case papers to be archived.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, the Court's interpretation of the statutory provisions, and the ultimate decision reached by the Court.

---