AMIT AGGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59 (1) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4736/2024HC DelhiDLHC01017154202402 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition was misconceived. The Court noted that the petitioner's request for a personal hearing, as evidenced by their letter dated February 27, 2024, was qualified. The petitioner had requested a personal hearing "in case any adverse inference is drawn in the above referred matter." The Court found that because the prayer was hedged and conditional, the challenge raised in the writ petition was not sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition and the pending stay application were dismissed. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to pursue any available statutory remedy.

What were the facts?

The writ petitioner, Amit Aggarwal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an assessment order dated March 5, 2024. The challenge was based on the assertion that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to provide a personal hearing, despite a request, in contravention of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 59(1) & Anr., drew the Court's attention to the specific wording of the petitioner's request for a personal hearing, which was made conditional on an adverse inference being drawn.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitioner was denied a personal hearing in violation of Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby vitiating the assessment order? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a personal hearing was requested but not provided by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, leading to a flawed assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the request for a personal hearing was qualified and conditional, specifically stating that it was sought only "in case any adverse inference is drawn in the above referred matter." This conditional request, as per the revenue, meant that the petitioner was not entitled to an unconditional personal hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B(6)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4736/2024

AMIT AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate

Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59 (1) & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. SC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

02.04.2024

CM APPL 19388/2024 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4736/2024 and CM APPL 19387/2024 (Stay)

1.

The writ petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India and impugns the assessment order dated 5 March 2024. 2. The challenge is principally raised on the basis of the provisions made in Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] to allege that despite a request for personal hearing having been submitted, the National Faceless Appeal Centre did not provide that opportunity to the writ petitioner. 3. Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn our attention to the manner in which the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 12:09:40

request itself had been framed by the writ petitioner as would be evident from its letter dated 27 February 2024. We deem it apposite to extract the following from that communication:- “The assessee shall be pleased to furnish any other details/documents required by your goodself in above assessment proceeding. It is also requested your goodself to provide further opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing to the assessee, in case any adverse inference is drawn in the above referred matter”.

4.

As is evident from the above, the opportunity of personal hearing was sought in case an adverse inference was to be drawn by the respondents. In light of the qualified and hedged prayer that was made before the Assessing Officer, we find that the challenge as raised in the instant writ petition is clearly misconceived. 5. Consequently, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed alongwith pending application. This order however shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner which shall be open to be addressed in case any statutory remedy is availed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. APRIL 2, 2024 p’ma This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 12:09:40

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →