9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1226 - HC - Income TaxValidity of assessment - change in jurisdiction in as much as earlier it was Faceless proceedings with NFAC but this time it was a notice from ACIT Cent-1 Rajkot without any prior notice or intimation of the order passed under Section 127 - petitioner was denied the principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing through video conferencing. HELD THAT - As petitioner was never put to notice about the transfer of the case from NFAC to the Central Circle except stating the said fact in the show-cause notice dated 10th March 2022 and it was left open for the petitioner to imagine that the case of the petitioner was transferred to Central Circle. We are of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that as the case of the petitioner is transferred to the Central Circle the provision of video conferencing/personal hearing is not available is contrary to the basic requirement of providing opportunity of hearing which would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Section 144B of the Act applicable to the proceedings before NFAC provide for video conferencing and in view of such provision the assessee would be left without any opportunity of hearing if the case of the petitioner is transferred to the Central Circle u/s 127 (2) of the Act. The petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned Assessment Order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AO to pass a fresh de-novo order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings and Assessment Order Relevant legal framework and precedents: The reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which allows the reopening of an assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The petitioner challenged the reassessment notice under Section 148, which was dismissed in a prior Special Civil Application. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the procedural compliance in the reassessment process, noting the issuance of a show-cause notice and the petitioner's response. The Court focused on whether procedural fairness was upheld, particularly in terms of providing an opportunity for a hearing. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner argued that the reassessment was based on a misinterpretation of capital gains under Section 45(3) concerning the valuation of stock contributed as capital. The respondent contended that the reassessment was justified due to discrepancies in stock valuation. Application of law to facts: The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the reassessment itself but concentrated on procedural aspects, particularly the opportunity for a hearing. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the respondent's stance on the reassessment's merit but emphasized procedural fairness, noting the lack of a hearing opportunity. Conclusions: The Court found procedural lapses in the reassessment process, particularly concerning the opportunity for a personal hearing, which warranted setting aside the assessment order. Issue 2: Denial of Natural Justice Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act mandates provisions for video conferencing in faceless assessments. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner requested a personal hearing through video conferencing, which was not granted. The Court emphasized that the denial of this request constituted a breach of natural justice. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner submitted evidence of a request for video conferencing, which was acknowledged by the NFAC portal but not facilitated by the Assessing Officer. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of natural justice to the facts, highlighting the procedural deficiency in denying the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the transfer to the Central Circle negated the need for video conferencing. The Court rejected this argument, stating that procedural fairness must be upheld regardless of jurisdictional changes. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the denial of a hearing opportunity violated natural justice principles, necessitating the quashing of the assessment order. Issue 3: Transfer of Case from NFAC to Central Circle Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 127 of the Income Tax Act governs the transfer of cases between jurisdictions. The petitioner contested the lack of notice regarding this transfer. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the transfer, noting the absence of clear communication to the petitioner about the jurisdictional change. Key evidence and findings: The respondent cited a search and seizure operation as the basis for centralizing the case, but the petitioner argued that this was not adequately communicated. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the petitioner was not properly informed of the transfer, which contributed to the procedural unfairness. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court weighed the respondent's justification for the transfer against the petitioner's right to be informed, siding with the latter due to procedural lapses. Conclusions: The Court determined that the lack of notice regarding the transfer further compounded the procedural deficiencies, supporting the decision to set aside the assessment order. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The provision of video conferencing/personal hearing is not available is contrary to the basic requirement of providing opportunity of hearing which would be in violation of the principles of natural justice." Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing, even in the context of jurisdictional changes within tax assessment proceedings. Final determinations on each issue: The Court quashed the assessment order dated 17.03.2022, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de-novo order, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles and providing an opportunity for a hearing through video conferencing.
|
