2024 (4) TMI 748 - HC - Income Tax

Court Sets Aside Tax Assessment Due to Denied Hearing, Orders Reassessment with Video Option in Twelve Weeks.

M/s. Bay-Forge Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Julian Chirstopher Amirtharaj Adaikalam Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, New Delhi, The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward – 1 (3), Chennai

The HC set aside the impugned assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, acknowledging the petitioner's right to a personal hearing despite ... Denial of specific request for personal hearing - petitioner expressing his difficulty in availing the opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, personal hearing was not granted, on the premise that the petitioner had not clicked on the Assessee Request Button/Icon and also not filled up the “Box of agenda of VC” - HELD THAT:- We find there is merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since under identical circumstances, this Court has already held that personal hearing ought to have been extended, though the petitioner assessee might have failed in clicking on the appropriate button. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. The assessment order shall be passed after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity and personal hearing through video conference. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Issues involved: Challenge to assessment order for Assessment Year 2018-2019 based on denial of personal hearing through video conference despite specific request.Summary:1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 08.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, contending that despite a specific request for personal hearing through video conference, it was not granted due to alleged failure to click on the Assessee Request Button and fill up the 'Box of agenda of VC.' 2. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice by providing relevant information/documents on 22.05.2021 and also requested a virtual hearing through 'NaFAC.' Despite facing technical difficulties in applying online for personal hearing, the petitioner reiterated the request multiple times.3. The respondent insisted that the petitioner had not clicked on the 'Assessee Request' button or filled up the box for video conference agenda, leading to the denial of personal hearing. The petitioner's subsequent attempts to explain the technical issues were not considered, and the respondent directed replies through the e-filing portal.4. The petitioner highlighted the absence of the 'Box of agenda of VC' in their communication with the income tax department, but the assessment order was still issued on the same day.5. The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the failure to click on the request button does not automatically negate the need for a personal hearing, especially when the petitioner expressed difficulties in the process. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was directed to be conducted after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and personal hearing through video conference within twelve weeks.6. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the importance of extending a personal hearing even if the petitioner failed to click on the appropriate button as per the authorities' suggestion.7. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order, directing a reassessment with a personal hearing opportunity, and disposing of the Writ Petition without costs.