Delhi High Court Sets Aside Assessment Order Due To Technical Glitches

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Assessment Order Due To Technical Glitches

The Court felt that the petitioner cannot be penalised if technical glitches prevented a personal hearing sought to explain the complexities involved

The Delhi High Court has set aside an assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to technical glitches.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla dealt with the matter titled Civitech Developers Private Limited v National E-Assessment Centre.

The facts leading up to this petition were that the Petitioner – Company which is in the business of real estate projects was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the issue of 'Income from Real Estate Business' during the assessment year 2018-19. The Petitioner – Company submitted that it replied to all the notices issued by the Respondent – National E-Assessment Centre including a show-cause notice dated 24 February 2021. The Petitioner was further served with a notice dated 10 March 2021 along with the draft assessment order to which the Petitioner filed a detailed reply with documents and sought a personal hearing through video conferencing.

The Petitioner contended that despite repeated attempts, the personal hearing/video conference link was not enabled and this was brought to the notice of the Respondent on 16 April 2021 but the Petitioner did not get a personal hearing. It was contended by the Petitioner that in the absence of the personal hearing, the Assessing Officer could not understand the complex issue or the written submissions filed by the Petitioner.

The Respondent submitted that the Petitioner did not place a formal request for a personal hearing on the e-portal despite several requests.

The Court opined that the Petitioner was not able to request for personal hearing on the e-portal due to technical glitches, as the option to opt for personal hearing was not enabled. It further noted that it was not the case where the Petitioner did not opt for a personal hearing.

The Court, therefore, set aside the assessment order along with the consequential demand and penalty notice and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.