2022 (5) TMI 527 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Faceless Assessment Scheme - Request made by the petitioner for physical hearing not provided - HELD THAT - Apparently, an opportunity in accordance with law was provided to the petitioner, and the petitioner was well advised by respondents to take recourse to virtual mode of hearing through the guidelines relating to Faceless Assessment Scheme, which the petitioner did not opt for. During course of arguments, the petitioner has provided the screenshots of the assessment home page,which shows that though video conferencing option was available, but the petitioner did not opt for it, and still kept on insisting for physical hearing. In our considered view, the request so made by the petitioner for physical hearing was misconceived and Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act does not postulate physical hearing. A method for opportunity of hearing was well advised to the petitioner, however, he did not opt for the same. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge the order impugned as well as subsequent notices, which are impugned in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, opportunity of personal hearing, compliance with Faceless Assessment Scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged three dated orders under the Income Tax Act, primarily focusing on the lack of personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner submitted various replies to notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, requesting a personal hearing before the final assessment order. The crux of the issue revolved around the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing, contrary to the provisions of the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the absence of a physical hearing opportunity vitiated the proceedings, citing Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act, which mandates a chance for the assessee to present their case orally. The petitioner relied on a decision from the High Court of Bombay and sought the quashing of the assessment order and related notices.

In response, the respondents contended that the petitioner was informed about the virtual mode of personal hearing under the Faceless Assessment Scheme due to the Covid-19 situation, but the petitioner did not utilize this option. The Revenue's counsel referred to previous judgments to support the dismissal of the petition on misconceived grounds.

The court analyzed Section 144-B of the Act, emphasizing that personal hearing need not be physical as per the provision. The court highlighted that the petitioner was informed early on about the virtual hearing process, and the petitioner's replies indicated acceptance of this mode. Despite the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing, the court found the request misconceived as the petitioner had been advised on the available hearing methods.

Ultimately, the court dismissed both writ petitions due to the petitioner's failure to opt for the virtual hearing method as advised under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The court concluded that the petitioner's insistence on physical hearing was unfounded, as the law did not mandate physical hearings under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act.