SHRI VIJAY SHANKAR SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIKANER

CW/6938/2022HC RajasthanRJHC01030975202206 July 20232 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned assessment order was unsustainable. The Court found that there was no order passed by the competent authority specifically denying the petitioner the right to a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 144B(7)(viii). Consequently, the assessment order passed without affording the petitioner a personal hearing was deemed invalid. The Court set aside the assessment order dated March 30, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Respondent No. 2) to grant the petitioner a personal hearing before proceeding further on the notice served upon him. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to fix a date for personal hearing and then proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma, challenged an assessment order dated March 30, 2022, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that he was denied the benefit of a personal hearing as provided under Section 144B(7)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act. He argued that if the benefit was to be denied, it should have been done by the competent authority prior to the assessment proceedings, which did not happen. The respondents, through their reply, attempted to justify why the personal hearing could not be granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed without granting a personal hearing to the petitioner is unsustainable, considering the provisions of Section 144B(7)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the denial of personal hearing was improper. He contended that if the competent authority was to deny this benefit under Section 144B(7)(viii), such a decision must precede the assessment proceedings, which was not the case. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The respondents referred to their reply, specifically paragraph 7, to explain why the opportunity of personal hearing could not be given to the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023:RJ-JD:20110-DB] (1 of 2) [CW-6938/2022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6938/2022 Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Radha Krishna Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village - Sinthal, Napasar Bikaner (Rajasthan) 334001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. The Assessing Authority, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi - 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani & Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani Mr. Falgun Buch For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 06/07/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of personal hearing as has been provided for under Sub Clause (vii) (viii) of Section 144 B (7) of the Indian Income Tax Act. Learned counsel further contends that assuming the competent authority had to deny him the said benefit, the power would exercise under Sub Clause (viii) supra thereof, which decision has not been taken by the competent authority prior to the proceedings to pass the assessment order. Learned counsel, thus, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain.

[2023:RJ-JD:20110-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6938/2022] Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the reply which has been filed by the respondents to contend and make an effort to explain as to why the opportunity of personal hearing could not be given to the petitioner. Reference in this regard has been made to Para 7 of the reply. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the fact that there is no order passed by the competent authority holding the petitioner not entitled to personal hearing as has been provided for under Sub Clause (viii) of Section 144 B (7), the impugned assessment order so passed without giving personal hearing to the petitioner is unsustainable. Since the notice had already been issued prior to the expiry of the period within which the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annex.8) could be passed, is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the assessment authority respondent No.2- National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for granting personal hearing to the petitioner prior to proceeding to take a decision on the notice which was served upon the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to fix a date for personal hearing of the petitioner and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 160-Anil Singh/Shahenshah/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →