https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311274 The Madras HC set aside a faceless assessment penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act because the assessee's request for personal hearing was not decided. The court clarified that while personal hearing is discretionary for the Chief Commissioner or Director General, the request must be considered according to the prescribed scheme. The matter was remanded to decide on the personal hearing request and complete penalty proceedings afresh within 12 weeks, with all substantive questions left open for determination. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Dec 2024 13:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311274 The Madras HC set aside a faceless assessment penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act because the assessee's request for personal hearing was not decided. The court clarified that while personal hearing is discretionary for the Chief Commissioner or Director General, the request must be considered according to the prescribed scheme. The matter was remanded to decide on the personal hearing request and complete penalty proceedings afresh within 12 weeks, with all substantive questions left open for determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311274