Court dismisses petition seeking relief under Article 226 despite pending appeal

The Court dismissed the petition under Article 226 seeking relief, including quashing an assessment order, despite the pending appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The Court found the petition maintainable for adjudication on merits based on uncontroverted facts and statutory violations. The petitioner's claim of denial of the right to a personal hearing under Faceless Assessment was not addressed, emphasizing the pending appeal's relevance. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting taxing statutes based solely on the language used and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedy of appeal without making findings on the claim's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition under Article 226 for relief including quashing of assessment order.
2. Maintainability of petition despite pending appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Violation of statutory provisions, specifically Section 144(B)(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Right to personal hearing under Faceless Assessment.
5. Allegation of denial of statutory right to personal hearing.
6. Interpretation of the language used in a taxing statute.
7. Dismissal of the petition with liberty to pursue appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking relief, including the quashing of an assessment order. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite a pending appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, the petition raised uncontroverted facts and violations of statutory provisions, particularly Section 144(B)(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, making the petition maintainable for adjudication on merits.

2. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice led to a response seeking a personal hearing as per Section 144(B)(7)(vii) of the IT Act. The Court noted that certain contentions raised by the petitioner were more related to the appeal's merits pending before the Appellate Authority, refraining from delving into those aspects.

3. The provision of Section 144(B)(7)(vii) grants the assessee the right to request a personal hearing to present their case or make oral submissions before the Authority. The petitioner alleged denial of this right despite requesting a personal hearing in their reply.

4. The Court examined the petitioner's alleged request for a personal hearing and found that the petitioner objected to the show cause notice, proposed additions, and requested completion of assessment on the returned income, offering video conferencing if needed. The Assessing Authority had the discretion to grant a video conferencing hearing if in doubt about the petitioner's contentions.

5. The impugned assessment order revealed multiple interactions between the petitioner and the Assessing Authority, including responses to notices and submissions of documents, leading to the final assessment order. The Court emphasized that the liberty of being heard was offered to the petitioner, and the decision's correctness was not within its purview, especially with a pending statutory appeal.

6. The Court highlighted the principle that in interpreting taxing statutes, one must focus solely on the language used without presumptions or implications. This principle was underscored by a historical legal perspective.

7. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal. The order clarified that no findings on the merits of the claim were made, leaving parties free to raise contentions before the Appellate Authority in accordance with the law.

---