TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is assessed to tax vide PAN No.ACAPM9587E under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed his returns on 29.09.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/-, after claiming exemption of Rs. 1,22,34,821/- under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his revised returns on 31.10.2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,94,84,810/-. The assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act was completed on 21.04.2017 determining the assessed income at Rs. 3,99,40,410/-. Thereafter, the said assessment order dated 21.04.2017 was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were not availed of by the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any, prima facie, case seeking interference of this court, and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 144B (7) (vii) and (ix) of the Act, which reads as under: "144B Faceless Assessment: (7) For the purposes of faceless assessment- (i) xxxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (v) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the draft assessment order or final draft assessment order or revised draft assessment order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Centre, such hearing shall be conducted exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software, which supports video conferencing, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board. In the case on hand, the counter of the 2nd respondent clearly indicates that though a request is made by the petitioner for being heard personally through video conferencing, the same was not granted to him, but, however, it is contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It does not anywhere indicate that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard through video conference in accordance with the provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act had been framed, it was incumbent upon Revenue to accord personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court emphasised that the aforesaid finding given by this court was due to Revenue counsel not producing the standard procedure and process framed by the Revenue. It was further held that the Standard Operating Procedure for personal hearing through video conference under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 was issued by CBDT vide Circular F.No.Pr.CCIT/NeAC/SOP/2020-21, dated 23.11.2020 and that CBDT vide order F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-1, dated 31.03.2021 extended the Circulars/notifications issued under Faceless Assessment Scheme to the Faceless Assessment under Section 144B of the Act and therefore, the SOP contained in the circular da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court held as follows: ".......the phrase "natural justice‟ is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula. Rules of natural justice are not embodied of such rules. It was held that two fundamental maxims of natural justice have now become deeply and indelibly ingrained in the common consciousness of mankind as pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially objectively and fairly. These twin principles are (i) audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the Courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. Its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority/forum that is the first point of contact between the assessee and the Income Tax Department. The identity of the assessing officer can be hidden/protected while granting personal hearing by either creating a blank screen or by decreasing the pixel/density/resolution. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the word "may" in Section 144B(viii) should be read as "must" or "shall" and requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the counsel, this court is of the view that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned assessment order in terms of Sections 143 (3) read with 263 read ....