SANDEEP DAVE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2759/2023HC DelhiDLHC01375723202321 March 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that there was no dispute that the principles of natural justice were not fully complied with in the instant matter. The Court accepted the petitioner's assertion that the videoconferencing link did not open, as this assertion was supported by an email dated December 26, 2022, and crucially, in the absence of a counter-affidavit from the revenue, there was no material on record to controvert this claim. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated December 26, 2022, was set aside. The Assessing Officer/NFAC was granted liberty to take further steps in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Dave, challenged an assessment order dated December 26, 2022, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner's primary grievance was the breach of natural justice due to not being accorded a hearing. A show cause notice was issued on December 13, 2022, with a response deadline of December 20, 2022. The petitioner filed a partial reply on December 20, 2022, and sought an extension until December 23, 2022. The petitioner was informed of a videoconferencing hearing on December 23, 2022, but claims the link did not open, preventing participation. This grievance was articulated on the same day and later communicated via an email dated December 26, 2022, to the DGIT (Systems). The respondents/revenue did not file a counter-affidavit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the petitioner not being afforded a proper hearing in the assessment proceedings for AY 2021-22, as contemplated under Section 144B(6)(vii) & (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the videoconferencing link provided for the hearing on December 23, 2022, did not function, thereby preventing them from participating in the proceedings. This was supported by an email sent on the same day and a subsequent email to the DGIT (Systems). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not file a counter-affidavit and therefore did not present any arguments to resist the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2759/2023 & CM APPL. 10604/2023

SANDEEP DAVE

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha, Adv.

versus

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ANR

..... Respondents Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Adv. with Ms Zehra Khan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

21.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. On the previous date, we had heard the counsel for the parties at some length, whereupon we had recorded the broad contours of the case. 2. The relevant part of the order dated 03.03.2023 is extracted hereafter: “2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 3. The petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the respondents/revenue under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. 4. Mr Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not accorded a hearing in the matter, which resulted in the breach of principles of natural justice. 4.1 In this context, Mr Sinha inter alia, refers to Section 144B (6)(vii) &(viii). 5. The record shows that the petitioner was, in fact, issued a show cause notice on 13.12.2022, and via the said notice, time was granted to respond till 20.12.2022.

W.P.(C) 2759/2023

Page 1 of 3 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 09/06/2026 at 22:08:35

5.1 The record also shows that the petitioner had sought extension of time till 23.12.2022, albeit, after filing a part-reply to the show cause notice on 20.12.2022. 5.2 It is not disputed by Mr Sinha that an intimation was sent to the petitioner to join the proceedings through videoconferencing (VC) on 23.12.2022. Mr Sinha, however, says that the link did not open, and therefore, the petitioner could not avail of that opportunity. 5.3. The fact that the petitioner articulated the grievance with regard to the same on that very date i.e., 23.12.2022, is sought to be established by drawing our attention to Annexure-8 which is appended on page 103 of the case file. 5.4. This plea is sought to be supported by Mr Sinha by relying upon the e- mail dated 26.12.2022, addressed to the DGIT (Systems). [See Annexure9 appended on page 104 of the case file]. 6. Issue notice. 6.1 Ms Zehra Khan, sr. standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 7. Ms Khan says that she will return with instructions. In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, a counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing...” 3. As would be evident, we had asked the counsel for the respondents/revenue to obtain instructions in the matter, and if instructions were received to resist the writ petition, a counter-affidavit had to be filed before the returnable date i.e., 21.03.2023. 4. Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that the counter-affidavit has not been filed. Therefore, we have no other choice, but to go by the record which is already placed before us. 5. There appears to be no dispute, that principles of natural justice were not fully complied with in the instant matter. 6. It is evident from the petitioner’s assertion, that the video- conferencing link did not open. This assertion was sought to be supported by

W.P.(C) 2759/2023

Page 2 of 3 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 09/06/2026 at 22:08:35

Mr Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, both on 03.03.2023 as well as today, by adverting to the e-mail dated 26.12.2022. This assertion would have to be accepted, in view of the fact, that there is no counter-affidavit on record. 7. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the Assessing Officer (AO)/NFAC to take next steps in the matter, albeit as per law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

MARCH 21, 2023/SA Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 2759/2023

Page 3 of 3 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 09/06/2026 at 22:08:35

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →