Court dismisses writ petitions challenging tax assessment orders under Faceless Assessment Scheme, virtual hearings sufficient

The court dismissed both writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's insistence on physical hearing was deemed unfounded as the Faceless Assessment Scheme allowed for virtual hearings, which the petitioner did not utilize despite being informed. The court emphasized that the law does not mandate physical hearings under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, opportunity of personal hearing, compliance with Faceless Assessment Scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged three dated orders under the Income Tax Act, primarily focusing on the lack of personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner submitted various replies to notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, requesting a personal hearing before the final assessment order. The crux of the issue revolved around the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing, contrary to the provisions of the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the absence of a physical hearing opportunity vitiated the proceedings, citing Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act, which mandates a chance for the assessee to present their case orally. The petitioner relied on a decision from the High Court of Bombay and sought the quashing of the assessment order and related notices.

In response, the respondents contended that the petitioner was informed about the virtual mode of personal hearing under the Faceless Assessment Scheme due to the Covid-19 situation, but the petitioner did not utilize this option. The Revenue's counsel referred to previous judgments to support the dismissal of the petition on misconceived grounds.

The court analyzed Section 144-B of the Act, emphasizing that personal hearing need not be physical as per the provision. The court highlighted that the petitioner was informed early on about the virtual hearing process, and the petitioner's replies indicated acceptance of this mode. Despite the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing, the court found the request misconceived as the petitioner had been advised on the available hearing methods.

Ultimately, the court dismissed both writ petitions due to the petitioner's failure to opt for the virtual hearing method as advised under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The court concluded that the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing was unfounded, as the law did not mandate physical hearings under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act.

---