2024 (4) TMI 1158 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order based on Section 144B(6)(viii) - Denial of personal hearing by National Faceless Appeal Centre - HELD THAT - 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 AO, we find that the challenge as raised in the instant writ petition is clearly misconceived. 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Denial of personal hearing by National Faceless Appeal Centre.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the assessment order dated 5 March 2024, primarily citing Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner alleged that despite requesting a personal hearing, it was not provided by the National Faceless Appeal Centre.

2. The respondents' counsel highlighted the wording of the petitioner's request for a personal hearing, emphasizing that it was conditional upon any adverse inference being drawn. The communication from the petitioner stated, "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." This conditional nature of the request was crucial to the Court's analysis.

3. The Court found the challenge in the writ petition to be misconceived due to the conditional and qualified nature of the prayer made by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer. The request for a personal hearing was contingent upon an adverse inference being drawn, which did not align with a straightforward request for a hearing. This led to the dismissal of the writ petition along with any pending application.

4. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, allowing them to address their concerns if they choose to pursue any statutory remedy in the future. This aspect ensured that the petitioner's rights were preserved for any future legal recourse.