Court quashes assessment order for 2018-19, emphasizes right to personal hearing.

The court quashed the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2018-19, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing to the assessee. The writ petition and application were disposed of, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings under Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. Disregard of court's order for personal hearing via video conferencing. Rejection of personal hearing request by Respondents. Timing discrepancy between notice of demand and assessment order. Legality of Respondents' rejection based on CBDT Circular. Interpretation of the word "may" in Section 144B(7)(VIII) regarding personal hearing requirement.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders violated a previous court order directing a personal hearing through video conferencing, which the Respondents failed to provide. The Respondents rejected the request for a personal hearing, citing no legal aspect to be heard and that the proposed additions were factual. The timing discrepancy between the notice of demand and the assessment order raised concerns that the decision was predetermined by the Respondents.

The Respondents defended the rejection of the personal hearing request by referring to a CBDT Circular from 2020, stating that personal hearings would only be granted in cases involving disputed questions of fact. However, the court referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory, regardless of the nature of the questions involved. The court found the classification made by the Respondents based on the Circular to be legally unsustainable.

Ultimately, the court quashed the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2018-19, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing to the assessee. The writ petition and application were disposed of, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open for further proceedings.

---