9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made:- "(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order of assessment dated 12.3.2022 for A.Y.2014-15 passed by the respondent. [Annexure -A (Coll.)]. (b) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the notice of demand issued u/s.156 of the Act on 12.03.2022 for Rs.1,79,61,567/- for A.Y.2014-15 [Annexure-A (Coll.)). (c) to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the notice for penalty u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) of the Act issued on 12.03.2022 for A.Y.2014-15. (d) to call for the records of the proceedings and look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice and order. (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition to maintain status quo in the matter and ask the Respondent and its subordinates not to take any action or to do anything in furtherance and pursuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded his reply letter along with ITRs for two years, sale-purchase deeds etc., as described in the acknowledgment slip. 4.4 The Respondent, however, finalized the impugned assessment on 12.03.2022 after making the impugned addition of Rs.2,65,88,640/- without issuing any show cause notice or the draft assessment order. 4.5 The Respondent thus completed the faceless assessment, which has resulted into huge demand of Rs.1,79,61,567/-. It was apprehended that the Respondent may initiate recovery of the same by taking coercive actions, including the attachment of the bank accounts of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. S.N. Divatia for the petitioner, after taking this Court through the narration of the facts noted hereinabove, submitted that Section 144B of the Act is in mandatory terms and the failure on the part of the Respondent to supply the draft assessment order before passing impugned assessment order, coupled with the further failure of the respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing, vitiated the impugned assessment order as well as consequent impugned notices. The error on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porated into the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 whereby Section 144B has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2021. In pursuance of the said provision, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, has laid down the Standard Operating Procedue (SOP) on this subject vide Circular F.No. Pr. CCIT/NeAC/ SOP/2020-21 dated 19.01.2020. This Circular deals with the procedure of faceless assessment, the scope of work to be done by different units such as the assessment unit, verification unit, technical unit, etc. The Parts S to U in this Circular relate to the show cause notice, draft assessment order and final assessment order. The relevant provisions of Section 144B(1) are reproduced under: "(xiv)- The assessment unit shall after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record make in writing, a draft assessment order or in a case were intimation referred to in Clause (xiii) is received from the National Faceless Assessment Centre, make in writing a draft assessment order to the best of its judgment, either accepting the income or sum payable by or sum refundable to the assessee as per h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be completed as per the such draft or final draft or revised draft assessment order, the assessee or his authorized representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the Income Tax Authority in any unit". 7.2 A combined reading of the above provisions, more particularly clause (xiv) and (xvi) would clearly show that :- a) when any variation prejudicial to the interest of the assessee is proposed, the NFAC shall provide an opportunity to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed variation should not be made b) The assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record, make in writing a draft assessment order and in case of prejudicial variation, call upon the assessee to show cause. 7.3 Thus, the entire faceless assessment scheme provides for an opportunity to be given to the assessee whenever there is a proposed variation from the earlier determination of assessment prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Therefore, the absence of such a show cause notice would clearly be a violation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity of hearing as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act is also therefore, required to be scrupulously adhered to as the principles of natural justice are unfailingly ingrained in the procedure prescribed for Faceless Assessment. Moreover, in the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the draft assessment order is not forwarded to the petitioner, which is required to be sent along with the show-cause notice as per the procedure prescribed under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. This Court in case of Atulbhai Kantilal Mehta (Supra) as well as in case of Agrawal JMC Joint Venture (Supra) has held that it is no more res integra that any order passed in violation of statutory procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, makes the order vulnerable as the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Apart from this Court, the Bombay High Court in case of M/s. Parimal Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 18(Bombay) and the Delhi High Court in case of Sanjay Agrawal Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, reported in (2021) 127 taxmann.com 637 (Delhi) have also taken the same view. 9. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
