The Department admits it refused the video hearing but says limitation was about to expire. Is that a defence?
No. The Gujarat High Court quashed an assessment where the request for a video conference hearing made on 4 March 2024 was not granted and the order followed on 15 March 2024, rejecting the plea that earlier adjournments had left the Department no time before the 31 March deadline.
Decided by the High Court (Bhargav D. Karia J and Pranav Trivedi J) on 2025-10-07, reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 6159 of 2024 (Gujarat High Court). It bears on section 144B, section 143(3), section 68, section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is recent authority, and it meets the excuse practitioners hear most often - that the officer could not fit a hearing in before limitation. The Court did not weigh the merits at all. It quashed on the undisputed fact that the hearing was asked for and not given.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2022-23 the petitioner, a company deriving rental income from property, was taken up for scrutiny assessment. Show cause notices were issued on 10 February 2024, 22 February 2024 and 29 February 2024 proposing two additions, about Rs. 16.46 crore under s.68 in respect of long term borrowings and about Rs. 15.87 crore in respect of fresh loans. On 4 March 2024 the petitioner made a written request for a hearing through video conference. No hearing was given. The assessment order was passed on 15 March 2024 determining total income at about Rs. 16.78 crore with a demand of about Rs. 15.92 crore. Before the High Court the Revenue accepted that the request for hearing had not been granted, and explained that repeated adjournments had left it having to complete the assessment before the limitation date of 31 March 2024.
The assessment order dated 15 March 2024 passed under s.143(3) read with s.144B was quashed and set aside without going into the merits, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the exercise to be completed within twelve weeks (para 10).
The Court's reasoning is short. Having heard the parties and perused the record, it held that it could not be disputed that the impugned order was passed in clear violation and breach of the principles of natural justice, and that the fact that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing was undisputed (para 9). The Revenue's explanation that adjournments had compressed the time available did not answer the breach; the petitioner's point, recorded at para 6.1, was that the very idea behind conducting a video conference is to ensure that an assessee gets an opportunity to explain its case, and that time remained before the 31 March 2024 deadline in which the hearing could have been given.
it cannot be disputed that the impugned order is passed in clear violation and breach of principles of natural justice and the fact that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing is undisputed
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Gujarat High Court quashed an assessment where the request for a video conference hearing made on 4 March 2024 was not granted and the order followed on 15 March 2024, rejecting the plea that earlier adjournments had left the Department no time before the 31 March deadline. This was decided by the High Court (Bhargav D. Karia J and Pranav Trivedi J) and bears on section 144B, section 143(3), section 68, section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 6159 of 2024 (Gujarat High Court). This is recent authority, and it meets the excuse practitioners hear most often - that the officer could not fit a hearing in before limitation. The Court did not weigh the merits at all. It quashed on the undisputed fact that the hearing was asked for and not given. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Make the video hearing request through the portal so the date is recorded, and repeat it if further notices issue.
For assessment year 2022-23 the petitioner, a company deriving rental income from property, was taken up for scrutiny assessment. Show cause notices were issued on 10 February 2024, 22 February 2024 and 29 February 2024 proposing two additions, about Rs. 16.46 crore under s.68 in respect of long term borrowings and about Rs. 15.87 crore in respect of fresh loans. On 4 March 2024 the petitioner made a written request for a hearing through video conference. No hearing was given. The assessment order was passed on 15 March 2024 determining total income at about Rs. 16.78 crore with a demand of about Rs. 15.92 crore. Before the High Court the Revenue accepted that the request for hearing had not been granted, and explained that repeated adjournments had left it having to complete the assessment before the limitation date of 31 March 2024. The matter was decided on 2025-10-07 by the High Court (Bhargav D. Karia J and Pranav Trivedi J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The assessment order dated 15 March 2024 passed under s.143(3) read with s.144B was quashed and set aside without going into the merits, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the exercise to be completed within twelve weeks (para 10).
The Court's reasoning is short. Having heard the parties and perused the record, it held that it could not be disputed that the impugned order was passed in clear violation and breach of the principles of natural justice, and that the fact that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing was undisputed (para 9). The Revenue's explanation that adjournments had compressed the time available did not answer the breach; the petitioner's point, recorded at para 6.1, was that the very idea behind conducting a video conference is to ensure that an assessee gets an opportunity to explain its case, and that time remained before the 31 March 2024 deadline in which the hearing could have been given. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "it cannot be disputed that the impugned order is passed in clear violation and breach of principles of natural justice and the fact that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing is undisputed"
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-10-07 and is reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 6159 of 2024 (Gujarat High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 144B, section 143(3), section 68, section 156, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The assessment order dated 15 March 2024 passed under s.143(3) read with s.144B was quashed and set aside without going into the merits, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the exercise to be completed within twelve weeks (para 10). It arises in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 144B, section 143(3), section 68, section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Bhargav D. Karia J and Pranav Trivedi J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the order arrives without the hearing, get the Department to state on affidavit whether the request was received; here the refusal was undisputed and that ended the matter. Do not be deflected by the argument that you sought adjournments earlier - that argument was made and did not save the order. Expect a remand rather than a windfall: the Court sent the matter back for a de novo order within twelve weeks.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Two searches, nothing found. The citedby search on the doc id is empty. A name search returns six results, of which five are this company's 2016 scheme-of-arrangement matters in the Gujarat High Court and the sixth is this judgment itself. No later decision has been found applying, doubting or distinguishing the holding that refusing a request for a video conference hearing made on 4 March 2024 before an order of 15 March 2024 vitiates the assessment under s.144B, and no appeal against it was traced. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The assessment order dated 15 March 2024 passed under s.143(3) read with s.144B was quashed and set aside without going into the merits, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's reply and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the exercise to be completed within twelve weeks (para 10).
TaxSphere, “Arris Estates P Ltd v Assessment Unit”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/arris-estates-video-hearing-refused-144b/ (validity last checked 2026-09-06)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I asked for a personal hearing in the faceless assessment and was refused. Does the order survive?
The Department says it issued a draft assessment order, but nothing appeared on the portal. Who has to prove service?
The faceless order made additions but no show cause notice or draft order ever came. What is the order worth?
The faceless order says I filed no reply when I did, and my hearing request was ignored. Is it valid?
