Assessment order quashed for ignoring timely reply under Section 144B and denying video hearing under Section 143(3)

The HC set aside the impugned assessment order under the Faceless Assessment Scheme u/s 144B, holding that the petitioner had timely submitted a reply which was incorrectly disregarded by the assessing officer, violating Section 144B(1)(xv). Additionally, the petitioner's request for a personal hearing via video conference was denied, contrary to the mandatory requirement under Section 143(3). The court emphasized that both the petitioner's reply and material must be considered before passing the final order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for non-compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory mandates.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the Assessment Order passed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme violated the principles of natural justice by incorrectly stating that the assessee failed to furnish a reply within the stipulated time.Whether non-consideration of the assessee's reply before passing the Assessment Order contravenes the mandatory provisions of Section 144B(10)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether the failure to grant a personal hearing upon the assessee's request violates Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice.Whether the impugned Assessment Order should be quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in light of the above violations.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the Assessment Order's observation that the assessee "failed to furnish any reply within the stipulated time" is based on incorrect facts and "cannot be sustained."The Court ruled that non-consideration of the reply filed by the assessee violates Section 144B(10)(xv) of the Act, which "mandates that the NFAC must consider the reply furnished by the Assessee before passing the Assessment Order."The Court found that the failure to grant a personal hearing despite the assessee's request is a violation of Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Act and the principles of natural justice, holding that "grant of a personal hearing is mandatory."The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order on these grounds and remanded the assessment to the Faceless Assessing Officer at the stage of the Show Cause Notice, directing reconsideration of the reply and grant of a personal hearing before passing a fresh Assessment Order within eight weeks.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which governs faceless assessments, emphasizing subsections (6)(vii) and (10)(xv) that require consideration of the assessee's reply and grant of personal hearing upon request.The Court relied on precedents from this jurisdiction, including the judgment in Milestone Brandcom (P).Ltd. v. NFAC and Vimal Trading v. NFAC, which establish that non-consideration of replies and denial of personal hearing vitiate faceless assessment proceedings and violate the audi alteram partem principle.The Court noted the importance of the principle of natural justice that an assessee cannot be "condemned unheard," and that compliance with statutory mandates for personal hearing is "intrinsic and ingrained" in the faceless assessment scheme.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the Court reaffirmed existing legal principles ensuring procedural fairness in faceless assessments.

---