Court waives pre-deposit, sets deadline for appeal, emphasizes compliance with statutory provisions

The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days, waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The Appellate Commissioner was instructed to decide on the appeal within three months. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and fair consideration by the Appellate Commissioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre for assessment year 2019/20, Violation of principles of natural justice in passing assessment order, Compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 144 (B) (1) (xvi), Passing of assessment order at the fag end of the limitation period, Existence of Risk Management Strategy specified by the Board, Availability of alternative remedy under Section 246 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Assessment Order: The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre for the assessment year 2019/20. The petitioner contended that the major dispute pertained to the addition of stock, and the assessment order was passed without considering this issue, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice as it was passed on the same day as the hearing.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed hastily at the fag end of the limitation period to ensure timely completion without due consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner claimed that the respondents had confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice and adopted the draft assessment order, indicating a lack of fair consideration.

3. Compliance with Statutory Safeguards: The petitioner contended that the statutory safeguards under Section 144 (B) (1) (xvi) were not satisfied as the Risk Management Strategy specified by the Board was not provided. The absence of a Risk Management Strategy was highlighted as a ground for quashing the assessment order.

4. Existence of Risk Management Strategy: The petitioner argued that the Risk Management Strategy specified by the Board was a mandatory requirement for passing assessment orders by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner claimed that without a specified Risk Management Strategy, the assessment order should be quashed.

5. Passing of Assessment Order at the Fag End of Limitation: The petitioner raised concerns about the timing of the assessment order, which was passed at the fag end of the limitation period. The petitioner alleged a violation of principles of natural justice due to the rushed completion of the assessment process.

6. Alternative Remedy under Section 246 (A): The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. Considering this alternative remedy, the court stated that the challenge to the assessment order could not be entertained.

7. Directive for Statutory Appeal: The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, emphasizing the importance of complying with the provisions of Section 144 (B) regarding Risk Management Strategy. The court waived the pre-deposit requirement under Section 220 (6) due to the circumstances of the case and instructed the Appellate Commissioner to decide on the appeal within three months.

8. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the specified timeline. The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions and ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioner's case by the Appellate Commissioner. No costs were awarded in the matter.

---