Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Bikaner, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6938/2022 Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Radha Krishna Sharma,Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village - Sinthal, Napasar Bikaner(Rajasthan) 334001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2. The Assessing Authority, National Faceless AssessmentCentre, Delhi - 110001.Centre, Delhi - 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani & Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani Mr. Falgun BuchGopalkrishna Chhangani Mr. Falgun BuchFor Respondent(s): Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 06/07/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that thepetitioner has been denied the benefit of personal hearing as hasbeen provided for under Sub Clause (vii) (viii) of Section 144 B (7)of the Indian Income Tax Act. Learned counsel further contends that assuming thecompetent authority had to deny him the said benefit, the powerwould exercise under Sub Clause (viii) supra thereof, whichdecision has not been taken by the competent authority prior tothe proceedings to pass the assessment order. Learned counsel,thus, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to thereply which has been filed by the respondents to contend andmake an effort to explain as to why the opportunity of personalhearing could not be given to the petitioner. Reference in thisregard has been made to Para 7 of the reply. Having considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties, keeping in view the fact that there is noorder passed by the competent authority holding the petitionernot entitled to personal hearing as has been provided for underSub Clause (viii) of Section 144 B (7), the impugned assessmentorder so passed without giving personal hearing to the petitioneris unsustainable. Since the notice had already been issued prior to the expiryof the period within which the assessment order dated 30.03.2022(Annex.8) could be passed, is set aside. However, the matter isremanded back to the assessment authority respondent No.2-National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for granting personalhearing to the petitioner prior to proceeding to take a decision onthe notice which was served upon the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of by directingrespondent No.2 to fix a date for personal hearing of the petitionerand thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 160-Anil Singh/Shahenshah/-