JAYA KRISNAN GOPALAKRISHNAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the respondent's admission in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing via video conferencing and that the records did not indicate such an opportunity was granted. The Court also acknowledged the respondent's concession that providing a personal hearing is mandatory from April 1, 2022, if requested by the assessee, as per Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court found it clear that the petitioner was not offered any opportunity of personal hearing despite a specific request. The assessment order (Ext.P6) was set aside, and the respondent was directed to complete the assessment afresh in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that failure to provide a mandatory personal hearing, as stipulated by Section 144B(6)(viii), vitiates the assessment order.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Jaya Krishnan Gopalakrishnan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P6) passed by the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner's primary contention was that the assessment was completed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite a specific request made by the petitioner on September 11th, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The respondent, in its counter affidavit, admitted that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing via video conferencing and that the records did not indicate such an opportunity was granted. The assessment order itself was silent on this aspect. The respondent acknowledged that providing a personal hearing is mandatory from April 1, 2022, if requested by the assessee, as per Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P6) is liable to be set aside for failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing, despite a specific request, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's contention: The assessment order is bad in law as it was passed without affording a personal hearing, which was specifically requested by the petitioner. This violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 144B(6)(viii). Revenue's contention: The revenue conceded that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing via video conferencing and that the records do not show it was granted. They admitted that such an opportunity is mandatory from April 1, 2022, if requested, under Section 144B(6)(viii). The revenue had no serious objection to the assessment order being set aside for fresh disposal after affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
144B(6)(viii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 31905 OF 2022 PETITIONER: JAYA KRISHNAN GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O C.M GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHAMBADY HOUSE,49 -A CHAMBADY ROAD ELAMAKARA PO COCHIN, PIN - 682026 BY ADVS. AJAY V.ANAND AJAY BEN JOSE RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI, PIN - 100001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Dated this the 08th day of December, 2022 This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order of assessment on the ground that the assessment was completed without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing despite specific request.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 5 it is stated as follows: “However, it is a fact that the petitioner had requested for an opportunity of personal hearing through Video Conferencing on 11th September as evidenced by Ext.P5 in the Writ Petition. But the records do not indicate that an opportunity of personal hearing through Video Conferencing was granted to the petitioner. The assessment order is also silent on this matter. But provision of such an opportunity is mandatory with effect from 01.04.2022 if the assessee asks for the same, in terms of 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, it is submitted that this deponent has no serious objection to the Hon'ble High Court setting aside Ext.P6 assessment order for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording to the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing through video conferencing.” In the light of the statement contained in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, this writ petition is only to be allowed as it is clear that the petitioner was not offered any opportunity of personal hearing despite specific request. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order of assessment is set aside. The respondent is directed to complete the assessment afresh in accordance with law after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. GOPINATH P. JUDGE SKP/08-12
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
