Ignoring an Adjournment Request Can Invalidate an Assessment: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Principles of Natural Justice
In a significant ruling strengthening taxpayer right in faceless assessment proceedings, the Delhi High Court in Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri v. National Faceless Appeal Centre has held that once an assessee files an adjournment request during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is legally required to pass a clear order either accepting or rejecting the request and communicate the next date of hearing through e-mail or by appropriate entry on the ITBA portal.
The Court observed that silence by the department on an adjournment request leaves the assessee uncertain about the effective hearing date and directly violates the principles of natural justice.
In a strong observation, the High Court even held that such conduct infringes the assessee’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment is likely to become an important precedent in faceless assessment and appellate proceedings where adjournment requests are frequently ignored without formal communication.
The Core Question Before the Court
The controversy before the Delhi High Court was simple but extremely practical:
If an assessee files an online adjournment request during assessment proceedings, can the department remain silent and proceed to complete the assessment without communicating whether the request was accepted or rejected?
The Delhi High Court answered this question firmly in favour of the taxpayer.
What the Delhi High Court Held
The Court held that:
• once an adjournment request is filed,
• the Assessing Officer must apply his mind,
• pass a decision accepting or rejecting the request,
• and communicate the next effective hearing date through e-mail or appropriate portal entry.
If no such communication is made, the assessee remains unaware of the status of proceedings and loses a meaningful opportunity of hearing.
The Court held that such conduct amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice.
Filing Reply Within Extended Time Cannot Be Ignored
An important fact before the Court was that the assessee had filed the reply within the extended period sought in the adjournment application.
However, despite the reply being filed, the assessment order was passed without considering the same.
The High Court held that once the assessee had submitted the reply within the requested timeline, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to examine and consider it before passing the assessment order.
Ignoring the reply altogether rendered the assessment proceedings legally unsustainable.
Strong Constitutional Observation by Delhi High Court
One of the most striking observations of the judgment appears in Para 20, where the Court stated:
“It is clear that the petitioner’s right of being heard has been infracted and the violation of petitioner’s Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India is apparent.”
This observation elevates the issue beyond mere procedural irregularity.
The Court effectively recognized that denial of proper opportunity in faceless proceedings can amount to constitutional violation affecting fairness, equality and due process.
Assessment Order and Demand Notice Quashed
Considering the violation of natural justice, the Delhi High Court:
• quashed the assessment order,
• set aside the consequential demand notice,
• directed fresh assessment proceedings,
• and issued timelines and procedural safeguards for de novo assessment.
The ruling reinforces that faceless assessment cannot become “hearing-less assessment”.
Important Implications for Faceless Assessment Proceedings
The judgment carries major significance in the era of faceless assessments where:
• communication happens electronically,
• hearings depend entirely on portal updates and e-mails,
• and taxpayers often remain uncertain whether adjournment requests have been accepted.
Many assessees face situations where:
• adjournment requests remain pending,
• no rejection order is communicated,
• no fresh hearing date is visible,
• and assessment orders suddenly appear on the portal.
This judgment directly addresses such situations and imposes accountability upon tax authorities.
Silence Is Not a Decision
One of the most practical takeaways from the ruling is this:
Silence by the department cannot be treated as rejection of adjournment.
The Assessing Officer must communicate a clear decision.
Without communication:
• the assessee cannot be presumed to know the next hearing date,
• nor can adverse orders be justified on grounds of non-compliance.
This principle becomes even more important in faceless systems where there is no physical interaction with authorities.
Practical Lessons for Taxpayers
This judgment offers several practical safeguards for taxpayers and professionals:
• Always file adjournment requests through the portal within time.
• Preserve acknowledgement and screenshots of filing.
• Follow up through e-mail wherever possible.
• File replies within the extended time sought even if no response is received.
• Keep record of portal status and hearing notices.
• Specifically raise violation of natural justice in appeal if no communication is received.
Important Message for Tax Administration
The ruling also sends an important institutional message:
technology cannot replace fairness.
Faceless assessment was introduced for transparency and efficiency — not for mechanical disposal of cases without meaningful opportunity.
Natural justice remains the backbone of tax adjudication, whether proceedings are physical or digital.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court ruling in Sanjeev Kumar Bidhuri v. National Faceless Appeal Centre is a landmark judgment on taxpayer rights during faceless proceedings.
The Court has clearly held that:
• adjournment requests cannot be silently ignored,
• hearing dates must be properly communicated,
• replies filed within the requested period must be considered,
• and denial of effective opportunity violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The decision serves as an important reminder that even in digital tax administration, fairness cannot be automated away.
The copy of the order is as under:
