Personal hearing through video conferencing not Provided – Bombay HC quashed the assessment order
Recently, the Bombay HC has observed that Personal hearing through video conferencing not Provided though requested in the proceeding. Bombay HC quashed the assessment order
The Bombay High Court struck down the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, holding it illegal and non est due to violation of natural justice.
The case detail is as under:
Vimal Trading v. NFAC, [2025] 172 taxmann.com 318 (Bombay HC)
Let us have a Short Overview of the case:
The core issue was that the assessee’s categorical request for a personal hearing through video conferencing was made just one day after the deadline mentioned in the draft assessment order. The AO rejected this request and proceeded to finalize the assessment without granting any hearing — a clear contravention of the statutory mandate under Section 144B(6)(viii), which guarantees the right of hearing.
What stands out starkly is the hypocrisy in the Department’s conduct:
While the AO took nearly 5 months (from March 22, 2022, to August 18, 2022) after receiving the last response from the assessee to issue the draft assessment order,
He chose to punish a mere one-day delay by the assessee in requesting a hearing, using that as a ground to justify denial of natural justice.
The Court strongly condemned this hyper-technical approach, observing that justice cannot become a casualty to technicalities, especially when such denial of hearing violates the principle of audi alteram partem, which is a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that such unilateral action by the AO, ignoring the statutory right to a hearing while clinging to procedural rigidity, is arbitrary and renders the entire assessment, demand notice, and penalty proceedings void ab initio.
The ruling is a stern reminder that tax authorities must uphold substantive justice over procedural formalism, and they cannot selectively interpret timelines when their own conduct shows prolonged inaction.
The Copy Of the order is as under:
