Delhi High Court - Orders
Interglobe Enterprises Private ... vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, ... on 21 May, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5249/2021
INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D.
Agarwal, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
(EARLIER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI) &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 21.05.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
W.P.(C) 5249/2021 and C.M. No. 16131/2021(for stay)
1. Though this petition, as per order dated 17th May, 2021 is posted on 28th May, 2021 but the counsels for the parties state that on mentioning having been made on 17th May, 2021, the next date was changed for today but which has not been reflected in the order dated 17th May, 2021. The Court Master also confirms the same.
2. The petition is taken up for hearing today.
3. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order, dated 9th April, 2021, of the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under Sections 143(3), 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-2019.
W.P.(C) 5249/2021 Page 1 of 34. It was the contention of the counsel for the respondents on 17th May, 2021, that the petitioner has alternate remedy of appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) available and the petition, as per Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603, is not maintainable.
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that though the assessment has been done by the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi but without following the procedure prescribed in Section 144B of the Act for assessment by the said Authority. It is contended that the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under Section 144B of the Act, was required to issue a draft assessment order and to give opportunity to the petitioner to represent thereagainst and which has not been done in the present case.
6. The counsel for the respondents states that Section 144B came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2021 and the impugned order is of the assessment year 2018-2019 and has been passed in accordance with the procedure then prescribed for assessment.
7. The counsel for the petitioner states that prior to coming into force on 1st April, 2021 of Section 144B, there was a Scheme in force, framed in exercise of powers under Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B), and Section 144B merely codified the said Scheme. It is contended that as per the said Scheme also, the procedure as prescribed in Section 144B had to be followed with respect to any assessment done by the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Attention is also drawn to Section 143(3D) to contend that as per that also, all assessments by the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi have to be done by following W.P.(C) 5249/2021 Page 2 of 3 the procedure in Section 144B.
8. Prima facie it appears that once assessment has been done by the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, it had to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed for assessment by the said authority and cannot be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the earlier prevailing regime.
9. Issue notice.
10. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents.
11. Since the issue involved is limited to the aforesaid extent and the other challenges, if any of the petitioner to the assessment order, if the petition is to be allowed, are to be considered by the respondent No.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, list on 31st May, 2021.
12. The counsel for the respondents to take instructions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 21, 2021 A W.P.(C) 5249/2021 Page 3 of 3