GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5912/2024HC DelhiDLHC01022306202426 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard. A plain reading of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act mandates that where a request for personal hearing is received, the Income Tax Authority shall allow such a hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner had indeed requested a video conference hearing. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the limited time provided to respond to the show cause notice and the subsequent denial of a personal hearing, despite a request, contravened both statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice, as observed by the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider it afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard through video conferencing. The petitioner was also granted one week to file written submissions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Global Vectra Helicorp Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 27, 2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner also challenged the demand raised under Section 156 of the Act. The core of the challenge was that the petitioner was not provided a sufficient opportunity to be heard. A show cause notice (SCN) was issued on March 5, 2024, proposing additions to income, and the petitioner was required to respond by March 9, 2024. The petitioner argued that this timeframe was extremely short, especially considering holidays, and violated the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which mandates at least seven days for a response. Despite submitting a response within the limited time, the petitioner requested further time and an opportunity for a personal hearing via video conferencing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner was provided with a sufficient opportunity to be heard, considering the short timeframe given to respond to the show cause notice and the denial of a personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory requirements under Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The time provided to respond to the ten-page show cause notice (March 5 to March 9, 2024) was extremely short, particularly with intervening holidays, and violated the SOP requiring at least seven days. - Despite submitting a response within the limited time and protesting the brevity, the petitioner requested additional time and a personal hearing via video conferencing. - An attempt to upload the request for a personal hearing online on March 11, 2024, was unsuccessful, but the request was made. - Once a request for a personal hearing is made, it is obligatory for the Assessing Officer to provide it. Revenue's Contentions: - The request for a personal hearing was required to be made online. - The petitioner's attempt to make the request on March 11, 2024, indicated awareness of the procedure, and since no request was made through the online mode, the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted. - The revenue's counsel was unable to substantiate this contention with reference to any provision of the Act or Rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 144B(6)(vii),Section 144B(6)(viii),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 17 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

W.P.(C) 5912/2024

Page 1 of 5

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5912/2024, CM Nos.24420/2024 & CM No.24421/2024 %

Date of Decision: 26.04.2024 GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. S. Lalchandani, Mr. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Vibhu Jain & Mr. Utkarsh K. Gupta, Advs. Versus ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Ms. Dacchita Shahi & Ms. Anuja Pethia, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL). 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent accepts notice. 3. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for hearing. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the assessment order dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned assessment order) passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). Additionally, the petitioner also impugns the demand raised under Section 156 of the Act pursuant to the impugned assessment order in respect of Assessment Year 2022-23 (hereafter the impugned Assessment Year). 5. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.05.2024 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5912/2024

Page 2 of 5

the challenge in the present petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had not been provided sufficient opportunity to be heard. 6. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 05.03.2024 (hereafter the SCN), inter alia, proposing certain additions to the income returned and calling upon the petitioner to respond to the same. The SCN spans over ten pages and raises various grounds. 7. Mr. Kapoor submits that despite the wide nature of allegations and issued raised in the SCN, the petitioner was called upon to submit a response by 17:24 hours on 09.03.2024. He states that the time provided was extremely short considering that there were two holidays after 05.03.2024. He also referred to the Standard Operating Procedure (hereafter SOP) dated 03.08.2022 framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi which requires that atleast seven days time be provided to the assessee for responding to the Show Cause Notice. 8. The relevant extract of the said SOP is set out below:

“N.1.3 To ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity to the assessee, timelines to be given for obtaining response to the SCN shall be: N.1.3.1 Response time of 7 days from the issue of SCN.”

9.

He submits that notwithstanding the limited time available for filing the response, the petitioner did submit a response within the stipulated time. The petitioner protested against the limited time provided to respond to the SCN and submitted that if the Assessing Officer require any further information, the petitioner be provided additional time to furnish the same. In addition, the petitioner also requested for an opportunity to prepare the factual / legal submission and representing the matter through video conferencing / personal hearing. The relevant extract of the said response reads as under: Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.05.2024 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5912/2024

Page 3 of 5

“The Assessee wishes to humbly and respectfully mention that show cause notice dated March 05, 2024 has been issued by your goodself, seeking information/documents by March 09, 2024. Your goodself would appreciate that only 3 working days-time have been provided to the Assessee to collate and furnish the details (comprises of voluminous workings/documents) on large amount of transactions. However, in order to duly cooperate with the tax authorities, the Assessee is furnishing, vide this submission maximum information at our end to demonstrate its claim. Should your goodself require any further formation, please do let us know, and the Assessee be provided additional time to furnish further required information’. Should your goodself opine contrary to the above submission of the Assessee, then an opportunity to prepare a factual/legal submission and represent the matter via video conferencing/personal hearing, be provided to the Assessee in its defense.” [Emphasis added]

10.

Mr. Kapoor submits that an attempt to upload such a request online was made on 11.03.2024 but the online portal did not accept the same. He submits once a request for a personal hearing is made, it is obligatory on the part of Assessing Officer to provide the same. 11. Mr Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent controverts the contentions advanced by Mr Kapoor on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that since the request for a personal hearing was required to be made online. The fact that such an attempt has been made on 11.03.2024 indicates that the petitioner was aware of the procedure and despite the same, no request was made by the petitioner through the online mode. He further submits that if the said request is not made in the manner as provided, the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted with for not acceding to such a request. However, he is unable to substantiate the said contention with reference to any provision of the Act and the Rules and Regulations made therein. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.05.2024 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5912/2024

Page 4 of 5

12.

It is relevant to refer to Section 144B(6)(vii) and 144B(6)(viii) of the Act. The same are reproduced below:

“(vii) in a case where a variation is proposed in the income or loss determination proposal or the draft order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per such income or loss determination proposal, the assessee or his authorized representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority of the relevant unit;

(viii) where the request for personal hearing has been received, the income-tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing, through National Faceless Assessment Centre, which shall be conducted exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony, to the extent technologically feasible, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board.”

13.

A plain reading of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act indicates that where a request for personal hearing is received, the Income Tax Authority of the relevant unit shall allow a hearing through National Faceless Assessment Centre, which shall be effected exclusively through a video conferencing or video telephone. Since the request for video conferencing was made by the petitioner, it is mandatory for the respondent to accede to the same in terms of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act. It is well recognized that an opportunity to be heard is an important facet of natural justice. Thus, before passing an adverse order, a reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the petitioner. 14. In C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors.: (1993) 1 SCC 78, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court also observed that even in case Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.05.2024 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5912/2024

Page 5 of 5

where statute does not provide for an opportunity to be heard, the same is one of the principles of natural justice. 15. Undisputedly, in the present case, the Act expressly provided for the concerned Unit to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing. In this view, we find merit in Mr. Kapoor’s contention that the impugned assessment order falls foul of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement of affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 16. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned assessment order and remand the matter to the concerned Assessing Officer to consider afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard through video conferencing as is required in terms of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Act. 17. The petitioner / assessee may also file written submissions within the period of one week from today. 18. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J APRIL 26, 2024 ‘gsr’

Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.05.2024 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →