{"id":1739,"date":"2026-11-04T12:30:35","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T08:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/?p=1739"},"modified":"2026-11-04T12:30:37","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T08:00:37","slug":"faceless-assessment-video-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/faceless-assessment-video-hearing\/","title":{"rendered":"Major Relief: Bombay HC Quashes Faceless Assessment for Denial of Video Hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A faceless proceeding cannot become a hearing-less proceeding. In a significant ruling on the faceless assessment video hearing<\/strong>, the Bombay High Court set aside an assessment where the taxpayer had expressly requested a personal hearing through video conferencing, the request was acknowledged, but the assessment was completed without granting it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision reinforces that digital administration does not dilute procedural fairness. When a statute provides a hearing safeguard and the taxpayer properly invokes it, the authority must deal with that request before passing an adverse order. Taxpayers facing similar proceedings may obtain professional assistance for faceless assessment and appellate representation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case at a Glance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Case<\/strong><\/td>Rajlaxmi Digvijay Khanvilkar v. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur & Ors.<\/td><\/tr>
Court<\/strong><\/td>Bombay High Court<\/td><\/tr>
Case number<\/strong><\/td>Writ Petition (St.) No. 13716 of 2025<\/td><\/tr>
Order date<\/strong><\/td>21 October 2026<\/td><\/tr>
Assessment order<\/strong><\/td>12 March 2025 under Sections 143(3) read with 144B<\/td><\/tr>
Core provision<\/strong><\/td>Section 144B(6)(vii), Income-tax Act, 1961<\/td><\/tr>
Relief<\/strong><\/td>Assessment, demand and subsequent notices set aside; fresh consideration after a personal hearing on seven clear days\u2019 notice<\/td><\/tr>
Time direction<\/strong><\/td>Fresh exercise to be completed within eight weeks<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Faceless Assessment for Denial of Video Hearing : What Happened in the Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The assessee received a show-cause notice dated 25 February 2025. Through the income-tax portal, she selected the \u201cSeek Video Conferencing\u201d option and requested a personal hearing. The request was acknowledged by email dated 5 March 2025 and was reiterated in a written reply dated 8 March 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this record, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 12 March 2025 under Sections 143(3) read with 144B and issued the consequential demand under Section 156, without conducting the requested hearing. The taxpayer challenged the assessment, demand and subsequent notices before the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Section 144B Requires<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Section 144B governs the faceless assessment framework. Section 144B(6)(vii), as applicable to the proceedings, protects the taxpayer\u2019s opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing when the prescribed conditions are satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provision must be read together with the principles of natural justice. A portal-generated acknowledgement is important evidence because it shows that the hearing request reached the Department. The authority cannot proceed as though no request existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bombay High Court\u2019s Findings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The High Court found that the hearing request had been made and acknowledged, yet no video-conferencing hearing was provided. The failure therefore violated Section 144B(6)(vii).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following its earlier rulings in *Vimal Trading v. National Faceless Assessment Centre* and *New Globe Logistik LLP v. ACIT*, the Court set aside the assessment order, consequential demand and subsequent notices. The matter was restored for fresh consideration after granting a personal hearing with seven clear days\u2019 notice. The exercise was directed to be completed within eight weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court did not decide the disputed additions on merits. It corrected the procedural illegality and required the assessment to be redone lawfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the Ruling Matters<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Faceless assessment is designed to improve consistency, transparency and efficiency. It is not intended to remove meaningful participation. A video hearing may be particularly important where facts are complex, documents require explanation, third-party material is relied upon or a proposed addition turns on inference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling also demonstrates that a denial of hearing is not a minor technical defect where the statutory request was duly made. It can invalidate the resulting order and consequential demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical Action Points for Taxpayers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n