Delhi High Court
Vikas Singhal vs National Faceless Assessment ... on 21 July, 2022
$~A-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5766/2021 & CM APPL.18092/2021
VIKAS SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kapil Goel, Advocate.
versus
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing
Counsel with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Jr.Standing
Counsel.
% Date of Decision: 21st July, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
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 the 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 the Act.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.07.2022
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 the Act, 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) 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.07.2022
8. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 26th May, 2021
passed by the respondent under Section 143(2) of the Act 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
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:22.07.2022
