Case Law Details
Subodh Gupta Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Subodh Gupta vs ACIT, the Delhi High Court has rendered a significant decision concerning Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner, Subodh Gupta, raised concerns about a breach of principles of natural justice in the assessment process. This article delves into the details of the court’s order, highlighting the grounds of contention, the court’s observations, and the implications of setting aside the assessment orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Breach of Natural Justice: The petitioner, represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, contended that the assessment orders dated 30.05.2023 and 31.05.2023 were challenged on the grounds of a breach of principles of natural justice. The dispute arose from two separate show cause notices issued on 11.05.2023, proposing a variation of income. The petitioner specifically raised concerns about the disruption in the video conference hearing, leading to an ineffective interaction.
2. Court’s Observations on Disruption: The court, in its order, noted the petitioner’s assertion that the hearing on 24.05.2023 was disrupted due to the absence of audio during the video conference. This led to a situation where the petitioner could not effectively communicate or participate in the proceedings. The court directed Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, to ascertain the accuracy of the petitioner’s claims from the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Setting Aside Assessment Orders: Based on the information provided by Mr. Chandra, the court acknowledged the disruption in the audio during the video conference, validating the petitioner’s concerns. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decided to set aside the impugned assessment orders dated 30.05.2023 and 31.05.2023.
4. Fresh Hearings Directed: The court, while setting aside the assessment orders, granted liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass fresh assessment orders. Emphasizing the importance of personal hearings, the court directed the AO to accord a personal hearing to the petitioner and/or their authorized representative. The fresh assessment orders are to be issued after the due process is followed.
5. Disposition of Writ Petitions: The writ petitions (WP(C) 9471/2023 and WP(C) 9472/2023) were disposed of in light of the court’s decision to set aside the assessment orders. The court provided a clear directive for the AO to initiate fresh proceedings with proper personal hearings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Subodh Gupta vs ACIT reflects a commitment to the principles of natural justice. By setting aside the assessment orders due to disruptions in the video conference hearing, the court underscores the significance of fair and effective communication in the assessment process. The order paves the way for fresh hearings, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case in a manner consistent with legal standards.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. We have heard counsel for the parties at some length on 19.07.2023 and we have asked Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of respondents/revenue, to obtain instructions in the matter.
2. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of order dated 19.07.2023 is extracted hereafter:
“2. These writ petitions concern Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 [WP(C) 9471/2023] and AY 2016-17 [WP(C) 9472/2023].
3. Dr Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that in the above-captioned writ petitions, the petitioner has approached this court on a very limited ground, i.e., breach of principles of natural justice.
4. The record shows that two separate show cause notices of even date, i.e., 11.05.2023, were issued proposing variation of income.
5. A link was transmitted to the petitioner for personal hearing via video conferencing; fixed on 22.05.2023.
6. It is the petitioner’s case that since the Assessing Officer (AO) did not log in till 01.39 p.m. he was issued a fresh link for 24.05.2023.
6.1 It is averred by the petitioner that, on 24.05.2023, the hearing was disrupted since the audio was absent during the video conference, and hence, interaction between the
6. It is in this context that assessment order dated 30.05.2023 is assailed in WP(C) 94 71/2023, and likewise assessment order dated 31.05.2023 is challenged in WP(C) 9472/2023.
7. Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, will ascertain from the AO, the exact position in the backdrop of the assertions made by the petitioner.
8. List the matters on 19.07.2023.’
3. On 09.08 .2023, Mr Chandra sought further time to obtain instructions regarding the aspect that we had recorded on 19.07.2023.
4. Mr Chandra has returned with instructions. Mr Chandra states that the audio was indeed disrupted, and therefore effective hearing did not take
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned assessment orders.
6. It is ordered accordingly.
7. Accordingly, assessment orders dated 30.05.2023 & 31.05.2023 passed in W.P. (C) 947 1/2023 and 9472/2023 respectively are set aside.
8. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) will be at liberty to pass fresh assessment order after according personal hearing to the petitioner and/or his authorized representative.
9. The AO in this regard will issue notice to the petitioner indicating therein date and time of the hearing.
10. The above-captioned writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid
11. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
12. Accordingly, interim order dated 09.08.2023 stands vacated.
