9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -up for final hearing and disposal, at the admission stage. 1.1 Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Sangani, appearing for learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, waives service of Rule for the Respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; 7. (a) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 at Annexure- A to this petition; (b) quash and set aside the impugned notice of demand dated 29.03.2022 at Annexure- I to this petition; (c) quash and set aside the impugned penalty notice dated 29.03.2022 at Annexure- J to this petition; (d) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the Assessment Order, notice of demand and notice of penalty at Annexure A , I and J , respectively; (e) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; (f) to provide for the costs of this petition. 3. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. B.S. Soparkar, for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Karan Sangani, for learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, for the Respondents. 3.1 At the outset, learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5.3 Pursuant to the above, the Respondents also issued a notice under Section 156 of the Act, determining the amount of tax at Rs.5,16,07,487/- as well as penalty notice under Section 274, read with Section 271 F, of the Act. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 23.09.2022, a copy of which is produced on record at Page-9 of the compilation, requires to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that Respondent No.2 has failed to give an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, though, specifically requested for by the petitioner. 5.1 It was submitted that in the reply dated 26.03.2022, a copy of which is produced at Page-132 of the compilation, the petitioner has specifically asked for an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, which is not accepted. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, then, referred to the documents produced at Page-136 of the compilation and pointed out that, though, the petitioner had made a specific request for grant of an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference on the web portal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25.03.2022 and in that regard, we have perused the documents produced at Page-136 of the compilation. 7.2 In this petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, though, he had made a specific request to provide an opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, the Respondents did not afford the same to the petitioner. 7.3 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Section 144B (7), prior to Finance Act, 2022, which reads as under; (7) (a) The Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, incharge of the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board in this regard, if he considers appropriate that the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 142 may be invoked in the case, (i) forward the reference received from an assessment unit under clause (xxxii) of sub-section (1) to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such case, and inform the assessment unit accordingly; (ii) transfer the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to the same was given within two days by the petitioner in the mode as prescribed under the Law. It also filed further reply to the said notice on 08.04.2021 as well as on 15.04.2021 in continuation of the first reply of 06.04.2021. It is also a matter of record that there is no reference of the request made on 07.04.2021 in a subsequent reply made in continuity on the part of the petitioner of 08.04.2021 as well as 15.04.2021. However, that would not in any manner question his conduct of requesting for the personal hearing in as much as that aspect is neither disputed nor belied from the material which is available from the eportal of the Income Tax Department. In fact in the affidavit-in-reply itself there is a reference of such a request made by the petitioner which according to the respondent-revenue is impermissible as he has not exercised the option while responding to the notice and the draft assessment order on 06.04.2021. XXX XXX XXX 20.1 Para-11 of E Assessment Scheme, 2019 notified on 12.09.2019 as modified on 13.08.2020 provides that no personal appearance in the Centre or unit would be there but request for personal hearing can be made by the assessee or his authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
