2024 (10) TMI 1372 - HC - Income Tax

Petition Dismissed: Assessment Order Upheld; Faceless Scheme Not Applicable; Natural Justice Claims Insufficient.

M/s. Sri Gopal Store, Sambalpur Versus Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi and another.

The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the assessment order was validly issued under section 143(3) read with section 260 of the Income ... Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment - assessment order was made u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 260 - as argued assessment order made manually under provisions in section 143 (3) though the assessment was to be done in a faceless manner as per scheme notified on 29th March, 2022 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner seeks interference on strength of notification dated 29th March, 2022. The notification says, it was made in exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 151-A. The section provides for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment. Accordingly, scope of the scheme, under section 3 thereof is, inter alia, assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. We find from assessment order dated 31st July, 2024, it was made under section 143 (3) read with section 260, pertaining to assessment year, 2021-22. The scheme has no application to the assessment. Violation of principles of natural justice - Section 144-B appears to be a complete code providing for faceless assessment. We have already noted before that impugned assessment order was made under section 143 (3) read with section 260. Sub-section (1) in section 144-B (1), without the clauses thereunder. It is clear that the Assessing Officer (AO) found purchases made from suppliers were doubtful. Questions of fact will arise in event petitioner’s contentions are to be gone into. As such, even otherwise we are not inclined to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to assessment order made manually under section 143(3) instead of faceless manner.2. Violation of principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity for cross-examination.3. Interpretation of notification dated 29th March, 2022 regarding faceless assessment.4. Applicability of section 144-B for faceless assessment.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order made manually under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of in a faceless manner as per the scheme notified on 29th March, 2022. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been made under section 151-A. The respondent contended that the assessment order was valid under section 143(3) read with section 260 and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal. The court found that the scheme for faceless assessment did not apply to the assessment in question, which was made under section 143(3) read with section 260 for the assessment year 2021-22.2. Another ground of challenge raised by the petitioner was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petitioner's request for cross-examination was not granted during the assessment process, which was a violation of natural justice. The court noted the petitioner's argument but did not find it sufficient to set aside the assessment order.3. The petitioner also relied on a notification dated 29th March, 2022, regarding faceless assessment of income escaping assessment under section 151-A. However, the court observed that the assessment order in question was made under section 143(3) read with section 260, which did not fall under the scope of the faceless assessment scheme as per the notification.4. The court discussed the provisions of section 144-B, which provides for faceless assessment. The court noted that the assessment order was made under section 143(3) read with section 260, and section 144-B was not applicable in this case. The court found that the Assessing Officer had raised concerns about the purchases made from suppliers, indicating that factual questions would need to be examined, and therefore declined to interfere with the assessment order.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the assessment order was validly made under section 143(3) read with section 260, and the petitioner's challenges regarding the faceless assessment scheme and violation of natural justice were not upheld.