Issues: Whether cash receipts recorded in the regular books as collections from identified business debtors could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69A applies where money is established to be unexplained. The disputed receipts were recorded in the regular books and were supported by party-wise ledgers, identified debtor particulars, audited accounts, sales and purchase registers, stock records and VAT returns. No defect was identified in the underlying business records, the books were not rejected, and no independent verification was undertaken from the identified parties. The absence of debtor confirmations alone could not displace the documentary evidence or establish unexplained money. Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation, without contrary material connecting the receipts to undisclosed income, also did not establish an unexplained source. Suspicion could not substitute proof.

Conclusion: The receipts were not established to be unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for unexplained investment in intangible assets and the consequential depreciation disallowance required verification; (ii) Whether the assessed-income computation, based on adjustments in the intimation under section 143(1), involved duplication of disallowances.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for unexplained investment in intangible assets and the consequential depreciation disallowance required verification.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies to investments whose nature and source remain unexplained, while section 115BBE governs their taxation. The difference between the recorded cost of intangible assets and the supporting documents produced could not be determined without examining the books of account, invoices, agreements, ledgers, payment records, salary records, and evidence concerning software customisation and development. The depreciation disallowance was consequential to the addition.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment and the consequential depreciation disallowance are remitted for fresh verification and adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessed-income computation, based on adjustments in the intimation under section 143(1), involved duplication of disallowances.

Analysis: Verification was required by comparing the original and revised returns, the intimation under section 143(1), the computation of income, tax audit report, and assessment order to ascertain whether the disputed expenses had already been disallowed and whether the assessment duplicated those disallowances.

Conclusion: The computation issue is remitted for verification and fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The disputed additions and computation adjustments must be reconsidered on verification of the relevant records after providing a reasonable opportunity to furnish supporting evidence and explanations.

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date of import for applying an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy is the date of shipment or dispatch or the date of filing of the Bill of Entry or clearance for home consumption; (ii) Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 applies to goods dispatched and arrived in India before its electronic Gazette publication merely because the Bills of Entry were filed thereafter.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date of import for applying an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy is the date of shipment or dispatch or the date of filing of the Bill of Entry or clearance for home consumption.

Analysis: Paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, read with paragraphs 2.17(a) and 11.11 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2023, defines the date of import by reference to shipment or dispatch from the supplying country. For air imports, the relevant Airway Bill evidencing departure from the last airport in the exporting country is determinative. The Bill of Entry or out-of-charge date is relevant under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 for determining the rate of customs duty, but does not govern the applicability of an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Conclusion: The relevant date of import for the import-policy restriction is the shipment or dispatch date determined under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures, not the post-notification Bill of Entry or clearance date. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 applies to goods dispatched and arrived in India before its electronic Gazette publication merely because the Bills of Entry were filed thereafter.

Analysis: A notification acquires legal force only upon its electronic Gazette publication and cannot operate retrospectively without statutory authority. The restrictive notification could therefore operate only prospectively and could not affect goods already dispatched and arrived before publication. Its clauses excluding transitional arrangements did not alter this position. A subsequent executive memorandum lacked statutory force and could neither override the policy-defined date of import nor retrospectively expand the notification's application; conditional import authorisations did not redress that entitlement.

Conclusion: No. The restrictive notification is inapplicable to goods dispatched and arrived before its electronic Gazette publication, notwithstanding subsequent filing of Bills of Entry. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Goods whose shipment or dispatch predates the effective publication of a restrictive import-policy amendment remain governed by the pre-existing import policy, and that position cannot be altered through a subsequent executive clarification.

Ratio Decidendi: For import restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy, the policy-defined shipment or dispatch date governs the date of import; the customs clearance date applicable to duty assessment and an executive clarification cannot retrospectively vary that policy framework.

Issues: Whether cognizance for an alleged contravention of Section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: At the cognizance stage, scrutiny is confined to the complaint and supporting material for determining whether a prima facie case exists; defence material and explanations cannot be evaluated through a mini-trial. The complaint and supporting documents disclosed allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation, and the cognizance order reflected application of mind to that material.

Conclusion: The cognizance and issuance of process for the alleged offence under Section 217(4), punishable under Section 217(6), of the Companies Act, 2013 were not liable to be quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for unexplained capital introduction and unreconciled bank credits could be sustained without verification of the assessee's claimed sources and bank entries; (ii) Whether GST late fee for delayed payment is disallowable as expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law.

Issue (i): Whether additions for unexplained capital introduction and unreconciled bank credits could be sustained without verification of the assessee's claimed sources and bank entries.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where an investment is unrecorded and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation of its nature and source. The capital introduced in the proprietary business was disclosed, and the assessee identified personal-bank funds, loan repayment, LIC maturity proceeds and FD/OD withdrawals as sources. Reconciliation of bank entries, borrower confirmation and documents supporting the stated receipts were material to verification of the explanation. If those records establish the claimed sources, the addition under section 69 and the bank-credit difference addition cannot survive.

Conclusion: The source-of-capital and bank-credit additions were restored for fresh verification after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish relevant evidence, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST late fee for delayed payment is disallowable as expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law.

Analysis: Explanation 1 to section 37(1) excludes an expense only where its purpose is itself an offence or is prohibited by law. GST late fee is a statutory payment for delay in payment of tax and compensates for the consequence of such delay; it is not expenditure incurred for an unlawful purpose.

Conclusion: GST late fee is allowable as business expenditure and its disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The capital-source and bank-credit matters require evidence-based verification, whereas the statutory GST late fee remains deductible.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory late fee paid for delayed tax payment is not expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law merely because it arises from a delay under the taxing statute.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned on sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the indexed cost of acquisition must include the cost of the building transferred along with the land; (iii) Whether deduction under section 54 is available for investment in two adjoining residential flats purchased as a single residential accommodation for assessment year 2012-13.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned on sufficient cause.

Analysis: The assessee's advanced age, difficulty in accessing electronic communications, and prompt action after becoming aware of the appellate order established bona fide and sufficient cause. No material indicated mala fides or a deliberate delay. Limitation provisions were applied liberally to advance substantial justice.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the indexed cost of acquisition must include the cost of the building transferred along with the land.

Analysis: The transferred property comprised both land and the structure standing on it. Although the Assessing Officer had accepted the historical cost attributable to the building, the indexed cost computation omitted that component without any basis. The building's existence and its accepted cost were not disputed; hence, excluding its indexed cost produced an inconsistent capital-gains computation.

Conclusion: The indexed cost must include the building's accepted and allowable cost with corresponding indexation. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains, and the issue was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction under section 54 is available for investment in two adjoining residential flats purchased as a single residential accommodation for assessment year 2012-13.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, section 54 did not contain the later express restriction of investment in one residential house in India. The expression "a residential house" permitted exemption where multiple units substantively formed one residential accommodation. The flats were adjoining, purchased on the same date, and intended for use as one residential unit; the later amendment effective from 01.04.2015 did not apply.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 was allowable for investment in both adjoining flats, subject to verification of the actual investment and satisfaction of the remaining statutory conditions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The capital gains require recomputation after granting indexation for the allowable building cost and deduction for investment in both adjoining flats.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the pre-amendment section 54 regime, investment in adjoining residential units acquired and intended as a single residential accommodation may qualify for exemption as investment in a residential house.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit relating to acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot could be denied as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression in respect of such credit.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit relating to acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot could be denied as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a plot allotted by the industrial development corporation constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and does not qualify as a supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, nor is it chargeable under Section 9. Section 17(5)(d) presupposes a lawfully taxable inward supply and applies only to goods or services received for construction of immovable property. No construction activity was involved in the transfer of leasehold rights.

Conclusion: The input tax credit could not be characterised as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d). The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression in respect of such credit.

Analysis: Since the underlying transaction was not taxable and the credit was not ineligible under Section 17(5)(d), the statutory prerequisites for fraud-based recovery under Section 74(1) were absent. The tax collected on the subsequent transfer of leasehold rights had also been deposited with the Government.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 74(1) on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression was unsustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A demand founded on the premise that acquisition of leasehold rights constitutes taxable construction-related inward supply lacks statutory basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of leasehold rights in land is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable supply; consequently, the blocked-credit restriction for construction of immovable property cannot be applied to such a transaction.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in a money-laundering prosecution despite the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the absence of a foreseeable trial.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 imposes mandatory twin conditions for bail, but those restrictions do not operate as an absolute bar and must be applied consistently with the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The predicate-offence investigation remained incomplete for about four years, no charges had been framed in the money-laundering case, and the investigating agency required further time to complete its investigation. Since adjudication of the money-laundering allegation depends upon progress of the scheduled offence, there was no realistic prospect of either trial concluding in the near future. Continued detention for an indeterminate period would convert pre-trial custody into punishment. The apprehension of witness influence or evidence tampering could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to release on bail subject to conditions safeguarding the investigation and prosecution witnesses.

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual dispute concerning reimbursement of DVAT was arbitrable; (ii) Whether DVAT was payable and reimbursable for goods procured for execution of the works contract.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual dispute concerning reimbursement of DVAT was arbitrable.

Analysis: A distinction applies between a statutory determination of tax liability, rate, classification, or exemption, which lies within the tax-authority framework, and an inter se contractual dispute over which party must bear or reimburse a tax. The dispute arose from a contractual reimbursement clause and concerned the parties' reciprocal financial obligations; it neither bound the taxing authority nor displaced its statutory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reimbursement dispute was arbitrable, and the jurisdictional objection failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether DVAT was payable and reimbursable for goods procured for execution of the works contract.

Analysis: Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India treats transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract as a deemed sale. Section 7 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 excludes sales occurring in the course of inter-State trade or import, determined by Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The requisite inquiry was whether the movement or import of the goods was occasioned by, or integrally connected with, the works contract. The contractual specifications, approval of suppliers, pre-inspection, customs and excise exemption certificates, custom-made character of the goods, and identification of the consignee established that nexus. Incorporation of the panels into sectioning and sub-sectioning posts did not sever it. The arbitral view was supported by the material and was plausible; reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another view was impermissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The procurement constituted sales in the course of import or inter-State trade, DVAT was not applicable, and no contractual reimbursement arose, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral determination disclosed neither patent illegality nor a basis for intervention under the limited supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal may determine inter se contractual liability for tax reimbursement, and goods procured or imported pursuant to an integral contractual nexus remain inter-State or import sales despite their incorporation in the execution of a works contract.

Issues: Whether ex parte GST assessment orders based on show-cause notices uploaded only on the GST portal, without affording a personal hearing, could be sustained.

Analysis: Although uploading a notice on the portal is a recognised mode of service, where repeated notices receive no response, the proper officer must explore other modes available under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably registered post, to ensure effective service. Mere portal-based service in such circumstances, followed by confirmation of the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing, amounts to an ineffective formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessments, having been made without effective service and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing, could not be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether defendants 1 and 2 were contractually liable to pay the GST arrears and consequential interest arising from the assignment consideration, and whether the plaintiff could recover that amount from them; (ii) Whether the statutory authorities could proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears notwithstanding the contractual liability of defendants 1 and 2; (iii) Whether a money decree for the claimed sum could be made against defendants 3 and 4.

Issue (i): Whether defendants 1 and 2 were contractually liable to pay the GST arrears and consequential interest arising from the assignment consideration, and whether the plaintiff could recover that amount from them.

Analysis: The deed of assignment fixed consideration inclusive of GST, and the evidence established that the entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff. The invoices, ledger accounts and communication from defendants 1 and 2 established their undertaking to remit GST. Their failure to remit the GST component despite receiving the full consideration resulted in the GST demand and consequential interest liability asserted against the plaintiff.

Conclusion: Defendants 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to reimburse the plaintiff for the GST arrears and consequential interest forming the suit claim. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory authorities could proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears notwithstanding the contractual liability of defendants 1 and 2.

Analysis: Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permitted the statutory authorities to proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears even though defendants 1 and 2 had contractually undertaken to pay the tax. The challenge to the demand remained pending before the appellate authority, whose outcome would govern any further statutory action.

Conclusion: The contractual obligation of defendants 1 and 2 did not prevent statutory proceedings against the plaintiff, subject to the pending statutory appeal. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a money decree for the claimed sum could be made against defendants 3 and 4.

Analysis: Defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded only at the stage of arguments, and the prayer for relief was not amended after their impleadment. The material established a contractual money claim only against defendants 1 and 2, without a basis for a civil money decree against the statutory authorities.

Conclusion: No money decree could be issued against defendants 3 and 4. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The contractual remedy against the suppliers for their GST default remains available to the plaintiff, without limiting the independent statutory process concerning the GST demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A private contractual allocation of GST liability does not restrict statutory recovery from a person liable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but supports that person's recovery from the contractually liable supplier.

Issues: (i) Whether supplier discounts or incentives disclosed in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C could, by themselves, justify a demand of output tax from the recipient; (ii) Whether the Revenue could characterise the discounts as consideration for promotion or marketing services at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether supplier discounts or incentives disclosed in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C could, by themselves, justify a demand of output tax from the recipient.

Analysis: Section 15(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regulates exclusion of discounts from the supplier's taxable value; it does not itself permit the recipient to reduce its own outward taxable turnover. Determination requires verification of the pre-existing agreement, invoice linkage, supplier-issued credit notes, reporting of any value reduction by the supplier, and the consequent applicability of input tax credit reversal. Mere disclosure of an adjustment in the reconciliation statement cannot establish an output-tax liability unless the recipient actually reduced its outward turnover or tax liability in the relevant returns.

Conclusion: No output-tax demand can rest solely on the Column 5(O) disclosure; the tax and input-tax-credit consequences require verification of the underlying documents and return treatment.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could characterise the discounts as consideration for promotion or marketing services at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The allegation that the incentives represented taxable promotion or marketing services was neither part of the show-cause notice nor a basis on which taxable turnover for any such outward service was determined in the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The new characterisation as promotion or marketing services cannot be sustained at the appellate stage and is against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Taxability and input-tax-credit consequences must be determined after a detailed verification of the underlying agreements, credit notes, invoices, and GST returns, confined to the allegations in the existing show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A recipient's disclosure of supplier discounts in a GST reconciliation statement does not by itself create output-tax liability, and a demand cannot be sustained on a new taxable-supply theory not contained in the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for a period preceding approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan could be initiated against the corporate debtor on the basis of fresh information.

Analysis: Approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguished past claims, including statutory dues, relating to the period before its approval. The binding effect of the approved plan prevented a fresh reassessment from being commenced against the corporate debtor for that period, notwithstanding subsequently received information concerning alleged pre-plan transactions.

Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings for the pre-resolution-plan assessment year could not be initiated against the assessee; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid for failing to specify the charge; (ii) Whether the difference between the income processed under section 143(1)(a) and the assessed income constituted under-reported income; (iii) Whether penalty at 200% for misreporting could be sustained where no case under section 270A(9) was established.

Issue (i): Whether the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid for failing to specify the charge.

Analysis: The notice expressly identified the charge as under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting. It therefore disclosed the basis on which penalty proceedings were initiated and was not vague.

Conclusion: The notice was valid; decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between the income processed under section 143(1)(a) and the assessed income constituted under-reported income.

Analysis: Sections 270A(2) and 270A(3) treat the difference between income assessed for the first time and income determined under section 143(1)(a), where a return has been furnished, as under-reported income. The assessed income exceeded the income processed under section 143(1)(a), and the resulting difference was consequently under-reported income.

Conclusion: The differential income constituted under-reported income; decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty at 200% for misreporting could be sustained where no case under section 270A(9) was established.

Analysis: Enhanced penalty under section 270A(8) requires misreporting falling within the instances specified in section 270A(9). The assessment and penalty orders did not identify or establish any applicable instance of misreporting under those provisions, and merely levied penalty at the enhanced rate on the under-reported income.

Conclusion: Penalty at 200% for misreporting was unsustainable; penalty was directed to be levied at 50% of tax on the under-reported income, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty is confined to the rate applicable to under-reporting of income and cannot be imposed at the enhanced rate prescribed for misreporting.

Ratio Decidendi: Enhanced penalty for misreporting under section 270A can be imposed only upon establishing that the case falls within a specified instance of misreporting under section 270A(9); under-reporting alone does not justify the enhanced rate.

Issues: (i) Whether written acceptance of enhanced import value precludes the importer from contesting reassessment; (ii) Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on undisclosed contemporaneous-import/NIDB data without compliance with the statutory customs-valuation framework.

Issue (i): Whether written acceptance of enhanced import value precludes the importer from contesting reassessment.

Analysis: Written acceptance of reassessment under the statutory scheme relieves the proper officer only of the obligation to issue a speaking order. It does not amount to a waiver of the importer's statutory right to challenge either the formation of opinion for rejecting the declared value or the reassessment on merits. The acceptance letters did not disclose the alleged contemporaneous-import particulars, and could not conclusively establish an informed abandonment of the right to contest valuation.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of the enhanced value did not bar the importer from challenging the reassessment; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on undisclosed contemporaneous-import/NIDB data without compliance with the statutory customs-valuation framework.

Analysis: Rejection of declared transaction value requires adherence to the mandatory procedure requiring formation and communication of grounds for reasonable doubt, followed by valuation under the prescribed sequential rules. Reliance solely on NIDB or contemporaneous-import data, without disclosed particulars, independent corroborative material, and cogent justification, does not satisfy those requirements.

Conclusion: The declared value could not lawfully be displaced solely on the basis of acceptance letters or unsupported NIDB/contemporaneous-import data; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was legally unsustainable because mandatory customs-valuation safeguards were not followed and the importer's statutory challenge rights were not extinguished by written acceptance.

Ratio Decidendi: Written acceptance of reassessment waives only issuance of a speaking order and not the statutory right to challenge it; declared customs value cannot be enhanced solely on NIDB data without mandatory valuation safeguards and cogent supporting material.

Issues: Whether Boiler Support Steel Structures imported in completely knocked-down condition are classifiable as parts of boilers under tariff item 84029090, rather than as iron or steel structures under heading 7308 or prefabricated buildings under heading 9406.

Analysis: Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff, classification turns on the heading terms and relevant Section and Chapter Notes. Note 2(b) to Section XVI covers other parts suitable for sole or principal use with a particular machine, while heading 7308 excludes constructions clearly identifiable as machinery parts. The goods were fabricated to boiler-specific drawings, with predetermined dimensions, drilled connection points, structural attachments and unique tags corresponding to designated positions in the boiler support arrangement. Their objective identifiability, load-bearing and suspension functions, and inability to be used for another purpose without substantial re-engineering established their sole or principal use with the designated boiler system. The associated platforms, galleries, walkways and maintenance structures formed part of the same specifically engineered boiler-support arrangement. Heading 9406 was inapplicable because the goods neither constituted nor possessed the essential character of a prefabricated building.

Conclusion: The Boiler Support Steel Structures are identifiable machinery parts suitable for sole or principal use with boilers and are classifiable under tariff item 84029090 as other parts of boilers; classification under headings 7308 and 9406 is excluded.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay was rejected and the special leave petition was dismissed as time barred.

Issues: Whether draft and final assessment orders passed without granting the requested personal hearing through video conferencing were valid.

Analysis: Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 incorporates the principles of natural justice in faceless assessment and contemplates a personal hearing through video conferencing where requested. The requested facility could not be availed owing to technical glitches and not due to any default of the assessee; yet the draft assessment order was passed without providing the requested hearing.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order and consequential final assessment order were invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment, demand and penalty notices issued against a company dissolved before issuance of the reassessment notice were valid.

Analysis: The company stood dissolved under Section 302(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 before the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued. Dissolution ended its existence as a juristic person. A valid notice under Section 148 is the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147; therefore, no reassessment could be initiated or completed against the dissolved entity. Framing an assessment against a non-existent entity is a substantive jurisdictional illegality and not a procedural defect capable of cure under Section 292B.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and all consequential reassessment proceedings, assessment order, demand notice and penalty notice were void and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.