Assessment order set aside for not providing 2nd opportunity of video conferencing

Assessment order was set aside for not providing second opportunity of video conferencing

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has set aside Assessment order was  for not providing a second opportunity of video conferencing.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4010 (2024) (05) HC

The Petitioner assessee had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to do the assessment proceedings de novo after affording a personnel hearing through video conference by considering the documents filed on the portal including Income Tax Returns & Audited Financials in accordance with Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

In the instant case, in pursuance to the show cause notice proposing variation, the petitioner availed the opportunity of addressing the assessing authority through video conferencing.

After the hearing got concluded, the petitioner was again issued a second show cause notice to which the petitioner filed a reply and again requested for hearing through video conferencing facility.

However, the impugned assessment order had been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing after the petitioner was issued with the second show cause notice.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner opted for an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing while filing reply to the additional show cause notice and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and the impugned assessment order had been passed.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the said impugned assessment order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner opted for hearing through video conferencing in its reply to the additional show cause notice.

Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was set aside. The Assessing Authority was directed to provide link to the petitioner for addressing the arguments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.

The petitioner was directed to make use of an opportunity to be given in compliance of this judgment.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• High Court denied pre-arrest bail to accused of fake ITC utilisation
• ITR was not non est for no e-verification when AO took cognizance of returned income
• Section 43CB & ICDS-III is applicable to contractors not to real estate developers
• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.
• Compliance history of supplier can’t be used to invalidate genuine business transactions of buyer