2025 (1) TMI 459 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - violation of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing requested by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Circular No. F.No.225/97/2021/ITA-II dated 6 September 2021 in the context of approval for the transfer of assessments/penalties proceedings to jurisdictional AO. This Circular provides that the request for personal hearings shall generally be allowed to the assessee with the approval of the Range Head, mainly after the assessee has filed a written submission to the show cause notice. Personal hearings may be allowed for the assessee, preferably through video conference. If Video Conference is not technically feasible, personal hearings may be conducted in a designated area in the Income-Tax Office. The hearing proceedings may be recorded. Given this Circular, the defence raised, or the justification offered in paragraph 6(e) of the Respondents affidavit cannot be accepted. In this case, though the assessment order was appealable, we have entertained this petition because a case of complete failure of natural justice was made out. No personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, and such denial was not for valid reasons. We set aside the impugned assessment order dated 26 March 2024 and remand the matter to the concerned Respondent to dispose of the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner following the law and after granting the Petitioner a personal hearing. The concerned Respondent should complete the assessment proceedings within three months of uploading this order on this Court s website. Now that we have set aside the impugned assessment order, the consequential demand notice and penalty notice based on this order are also set aside. All contentions of all parties are left open for consideration of the AO in the first instance.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered by the court in this judgment are as follows:

Whether the assessment order dated 26 March 2024 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing requested by the petitioner.
Whether the procedural requirements for granting a personal hearing, as outlined in relevant circulars and legal precedents, were adhered to by the tax authorities.
Whether the transfer of proceedings from a faceless assessing officer (FAO) to a jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) justified the denial of a video conference hearing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing, are fundamental in administrative law. The court referenced the case of John v. Rees, which emphasizes the importance of allowing parties to be heard before decisions are made.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that denying a personal hearing on the grounds that the petitioner had nothing further to add was inappropriate. The court emphasized that if the law requires a personal hearing, it should not be denied without valid reasons.
Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the petitioner explicitly requested a personal hearing, which was not disputed. The assessment order's paragraph 11 suggested that the request was denied because the petitioner had nothing further to contribute.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of natural justice, finding that the denial of a personal hearing constituted a breach of these principles.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the respondents' argument that the denial was justified due to the transfer of proceedings from FAO to JAO, as outlined in paragraph 6(e) of the additional affidavit.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the denial of a personal hearing was unjustified and set aside the assessment order on this ground.

Issue 2: Procedural Requirements for Personal Hearing

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Circular No. F.No.225/97/2021/ITA-II dated 6 September 2021 outlines the procedural requirements for granting personal hearings, including the preference for video conferencing.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted the circular to mean that personal hearings should generally be granted, and video conferencing should be preferred unless technically unfeasible.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that the respondents failed to justify the denial of a video conference hearing, as the circular allowed for such hearings even when proceedings were transferred to a JAO.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the circular's provisions, finding that the respondents did not adhere to the procedural requirements for granting a personal hearing.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the respondents' justification that the transfer to JAO negated the availability of video conferencing.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the procedural requirements for a personal hearing were not met, contributing to the decision to set aside the assessment order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court quoted Megarry, J., from John v. Rees: "It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice... Nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find that a decision against them has been made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events."
Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a personal hearing is integral to the observance of natural justice and should not be denied without compelling reasons.
Final determinations on each issue: The court set aside the assessment order dated 26 March 2024, remanding the matter to the respondents to dispose of the show cause notice in accordance with the law, after granting the petitioner a personal hearing. The court also set aside the consequential demand notice and penalty notice.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings, particularly in the context of tax assessments.

← Previous Next →