Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was liable to be quashed for denial of effective opportunity of personal hearing and breach of natural justice in the faceless assessment process.
Analysis: The notice process showed that the assessee had responded to the requisition under section 142(1), but no further action was taken for more than three months and a show-cause notice was issued only a few days before limitation. The assessee sought a personal hearing through video conferencing, the hearing link was accessed, and the hearing could not take place because of a technical glitch. The surrounding circumstances showed that the opportunity of hearing, though sought and scheduled, was not effectively granted before the assessment order was passed.
Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority from the stage of granting personal hearing through video conferencing.
Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment did not survive for want of a fair hearing, and the proceeding was sent back for fresh adjudication after compliance with the hearing requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a personal hearing is sought in faceless assessment and the hearing fails because of a technical glitch, the resulting denial of effective opportunity violates natural justice and vitiates the assessment order.