Venkateshwara Jewellery Vs Assessment Unit (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the obligation of faceless personal hearings under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The case, Venkateshwara Jewellery Vs Assessment Unit, raises pertinent questions about the interpretation of the term ‘shall’ in ensuring video-conference hearings.
The crux of the matter lies in the petitioner’s contention that they were denied a video-conference hearing, despite requesting one in response to a show cause notice. The petitioner’s argument, supported by legal precedent and statutory interpretation, emphasizes the mandatory nature of such hearings under Section 144B.
The court examined the language of Section 144B(6)(viii), noting the transition from “may” to “shall,” signifying a legislative intent to make video-conference hearings obligatory. Despite the respondent’s assertion that an opportunity for a video-conference hearing was provided, the court found no evidence of such provision after the petitioner’s explicit request.
The judgment underscores the fundamental principle of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. Denial of a video-conference hearing, in this context, constitutes a violation of this principle. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned assessment order and directed the respondent to conduct a video-conference hearing within a specified timeframe.
