2025 (8) TMI 60 - HC - Income Tax

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

New Globe Logistik LLP Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (3) (1) & Others.

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 ... Faceless Assessment Scheme u/s 144B - violation of the principles of natural justice - Scope of provisions of Section 144B - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the Petitioner furnished its reply on 04.03.2025, to the final Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2025 which is within the time granted by the 2nd Respondent himself on 28.02.2025. Therefore, the observations of the 2nd Respondent that no response is furnished by the Petitioner clearly proceeds on incorrect facts and cannot be sustained. Not just that, it is also in violation of Section 144B(1)(xv) of the Act which specifically mandates that the reply of the Assessee as well as all material available with the Assessment Unit shall be taken into consideration before passing the final Assessment Order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground itself. Petitioner did seek a personal hearing by video conference. The said personal hearing has not been granted before passing the Assessment Order - This Court has, in the case of Vimal Trading [2025 (3) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] categorically held that grant of a personal hearing is mandatory in terms of Section 143 (3) of the Act. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of M.I. Alloys [2025 (1) TMI 770 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. It is therefore evident the impugned order deserves to be quashed on both the above stated counts. 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.