2022 (7) TMI 1548 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Assessment order passed u/s 143(2) due to lack of personal hearing for the petitioner - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors. 2022 (1) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that the use of the expression may in Section 144B(7)(viii) is not decisive. Where discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has civil consequences, the word may which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the Respondent between the matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. This Court is of the opinion that an assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. Consequently, the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

Summary

The High Court quashed the assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19 due to lack of personal hearing for the petitioner. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.