Orissa High Court
M/S. Sri Gopal Store vs Assessing Officer on 22 October, 2024
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24786 of 2024
M/s. Sri Gopal Store, Sambalpur .... Petitioner
-versus-
Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit .... Opposite Parties
National Faceless Assessment
Centre, New Delhi and another
Learned advocates appeared in the case:
For petitioner : Mr. S. Ray, Senior Advocate
Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate
Mr. D.K. Samal, Advocate
For opposite parties : Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Advocate
(Senior Standing Counsel)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment : 22nd October, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner and submits, impugned are assessment order dated 31st
July, 2024 pertaining to assessment year, 2021-22 and demand
notices issued pursuant thereto. They are liable to be quashed
because they were made manually under provisions in section
143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 though the assessment was to be
done in a faceless manner as per scheme notified on 29th March,
2022. He draws attention to the notification to submit, the
assessment ought to have been made as provided in section 151-A.
He seeks interference.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of revenue and submits, the assessment order was
made under section 143(3) read with section 260. Petitioner has
alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal to the first
appellate authority. The writ petition is not maintainable.
3. Petitioner seeks interference on strength of notification dated
29th March, 2022. The notification says, it was made in exercise of
powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 151-A. The
section provides for faceless assessment of income escaping
assessment. Accordingly, scope of the scheme, under section 3
thereof is, inter alia, assessment, reassessment or re-computation
under section 147. We find from assessment order dated 31st July,
2024, it was made under section 143(3) read with section 260,
pertaining to assessment year, 2021-22. The scheme has no
application to the assessment.
4. Mr. Ray submits, he has another point of challenge. It is
violation of principles of natural justice. He draws attention to his
client's reply dated 19th July, 2023 to the show-cause notice. He
demonstrates that a further prayer was made to afford chance to his
client to cross-examine. The further prayer is reproduced below.
"It is further prayed that before passing any adverse
order, if any, utilizing the statement of any Person/
Party/Dealer/Assessee, a chance to cross examine the
concerned Person/Party/Dealer/Assessee may kindly be
allowed to the assessee or his authorized representative
across the table before the jurisdictional ITO, Sambalpur
or if possible through Video Conferring. The assessee is
ready to pay the cost of transportation and other
expenses of the concerned persons to be cross
examined."
No opportunity of cross-examination was given in making of
impugned assessment order.
5. On query from Court Mr. Ray refers us to impugned
assessment order. He demonstrates, there was reliance on physical
verification report in the case of Md. Amir Faijal. No opportunity of
cross-examination was given to his client in acting upon the report.
He submits still further with reference to sub-section(1) in section
144-B, it is a non obstante clause applicable, inter alia, in respect of
sub-section(3) in section 143. He reiterates, impugned order along
with demands made pursuant thereto, be all set aside.
6. Mr. Mohanty reiterates, there be no interference since
impugned assessment order was made on restoration of the show-
cause notice by our order dated 13th July, 2023 in WP(C) no.18079
of 2023 (petitioner's own case).
7. Section 144-B appears to be a complete code providing for
faceless assessment. We have already noted before that impugned
assessment order was made under section 143(3) read with section
260. Sub-section(1) in section 144-B(1), without the clauses
thereunder is reproduced below.
"144-B. Faceless assessment.-(1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other provisions
of this Act, the assessment under sub-section (3) of section
143 or under section 144, in the cases referred to in sub-
section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the
following procedure, namely:- ... ... ... ..."
(emphasis supplied)
Sub-section(2) in section 144-B is also reproduced below.
"(2) The faceless assessment under sub-section(1) shall be
made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or
class of persons, or incomes or class of incomes, or cases
or class of cases, as may be specified by the Board."
No specification by the Board has been shown to us.
8. It is clear that the Assessing Officer (AO) found purchases
made from suppliers were doubtful. Questions of fact will arise in
event petitioner's contentions are to be gone into. As such, even
otherwise we are not inclined to interfere.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
10.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Signature
PrasantNot Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 22-Oct-2024 18:39:23
