Requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory.

Held Court in case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union ofIndia &Ors., has held that the use of the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(viii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is not decisive. Where discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the Respondent between matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. An assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. (para 7) Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26 th May, 2021passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment year 2018-19 and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Assessee’s petition allowed. (para 8)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 26th May, 2021 passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) [‘the Act’].

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19, was passed in violation of Section 144B(7)(vii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

3. He points out that the petitioner had sought personal hearing on two dates, i.e., 30th March, 2021 and 19th April, 2021. He emphasises that a request for oral hearing was made on 19th April, 2021 by way of the petitioner's reply/objection to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated 15th April, 2021.

4. He states that even though the petitioner's declared income was Rs.7,30,700/-, the Respondent/revenue had enhanced the declared income to Rs.46,02,60,330/-, thereby proposing disallowances/additions amounting to Rs.45,95,29,630/- against the Petitioner.

5. He also points out that the demand raised against the petitioner, as indicated in the notice issued under Section 156 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), dated 26th May, 2021, is Rs.49,68,78,182/-.

6. Per contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Respondent, submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, and therefore, the request for personal hearing was rightly declined.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra.

This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi), has held that the use of the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(viii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is not decisive. Where discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the Respondent between the matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. This Court is of the opinion that an assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it.

8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26th May, 2021 passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment year 2018-19 and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application are disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

JULY 21, 2022

LEGAL REFERENCES

CONCEPTS

Delhi High Court

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory.

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/7195.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

Held

Court in case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union ofIndia &Ors., has held that the use of the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(viii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is not decisive. Where discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the Respondent between matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. An assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it.

(para 7)

Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26 th May, 2021passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment year 2018-19 and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Assessee’s petition allowed.

(para 8)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
assessment order dated 26th May, 2021 passed by the respondent under
Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) [‘the Act’]. 
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the principal grievance
of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order for the assessment
year 2018-19, was passed in violation of Section 144B(7)(vii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). 
3. He points out that the petitioner had sought personal hearing on two
dates, i.e., 30th March, 2021 and 19th April, 2021. He emphasises that a
request for oral hearing was made on 19th April, 2021 by way of the
petitioner's reply/objection to the show cause notice and draft assessment
order dated 15th April, 2021. 
4. He states that even though the petitioner's declared income was
Rs.7,30,700/-, the Respondent/revenue had enhanced the declared income to
Rs.46,02,60,330/-, thereby proposing disallowances/additions amounting to
Rs.45,95,29,630/- against the Petitioner. 
5. He also points out that the demand raised against the petitioner, as
indicated in the notice issued under Section 156 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), dated 26th May,
2021, is Rs.49,68,78,182/-. 
6. Per contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Respondent,
submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, and therefore, the request for personal hearing was rightly declined. 
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra.
This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of
India &amp; Ors., [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi), has held that the use of
the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(viii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is not decisive. Where
discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has
civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be
construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an
assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was
further held that the classification made by the Respondent between the
matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of
the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. This
Court is of the opinion that an assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. 
8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26th May, 2021
passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment
year 2018-19 and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is
remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve
weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance
with law. 
9. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application
are disposed of.
 
MANMOHAN, J
 
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
 
JULY 21, 2022

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
assessment order dated 26th May, 2021 passed by the respondent under
Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) [‘the Act’]. 
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the principal grievance
of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order for the assessment
year 2018-19, was passed in violation of Section 144B(7)(vii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). 
3. He points out that the petitioner had sought personal hearing on two
dates, i.e., 30th March, 2021 and 19th April, 2021. He emphasises that a
request for oral hearing was made on 19th April, 2021 by way of the
petitioner's reply/objection to the show cause notice and draft assessment
order dated 15th April, 2021. 
4. He states that even though the petitioner's declared income was
Rs.7,30,700/-, the Respondent/revenue had enhanced the declared income to
Rs.46,02,60,330/-, thereby proposing disallowances/additions amounting to
Rs.45,95,29,630/- against the Petitioner. 
5. He also points out that the demand raised against the petitioner, as
indicated in the notice issued under Section 156 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), dated 26th May,
2021, is Rs.49,68,78,182/-. 
6. Per contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Respondent,
submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, and therefore, the request for personal hearing was rightly declined. 
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra.
This Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of
India & Ors., [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi), has held that the use of
the expression “may” in Section 144B(7)(viii) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) is not decisive. Where
discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority, whose decision has
civil consequences, the word “may” which denotes discretion should be
construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an
assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory. It was
further held that the classification made by the Respondent between the
matters involving disputed questions of fact and questions of law by way of
the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not legally sustainable. This
Court is of the opinion that an assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and the same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. 
8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26th May, 2021
passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for the assessment
year 2018-19 and the consequent proceedings are quashed and the matter is
remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve
weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance
with law. 
9. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application
are disposed of.
 
MANMOHAN, J
 
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
 
JULY 21, 2022

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory.