https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89578 The HC quashed a penalty order under Section 271AA(1) for violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds that it was passed by an officer who did not conduct the video conference hearing. The court held that personal hearing is essential and cannot be substituted by written arguments, emphasizing that the officer who hears the assessee must be the same who decides the matter. Relying on established precedent, the court ruled that when one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The court directed respondents to ensure compliance with faceless procedure requirements under the amended scheme, mandating that assessing officers conducting video conferences must pass the corresponding orders. The penalty order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing and decision. en-us Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:32 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89578 The HC quashed a penalty order under Section 271AA(1) for violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds that it was passed by an officer who did not conduct the video conference hearing. The court held that personal hearing is essential and cannot be substituted by written arguments, emphasizing that the officer who hears the assessee must be the same who decides the matter. Relying on established precedent, the court ruled that when one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The court directed respondents to ensure compliance with faceless procedure requirements under the amended scheme, mandating that assessing officers conducting video conferences must pass the corresponding orders. The penalty order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing and decision. Highlights Income Tax Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89578