Section 144B(9)

Section 144B(9) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 144B(9), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Mantra Industries Ltd v NFAC High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The faceless order says I filed no reply when I did, and my hearing request was ignored. Is it valid?
  It was set aside. The final order reproduced the draft order word for word apart from one sentence, recorded that no response had been filed when two replies were on the record, and ignored the requests for adjournment and personal hearing — so it was held non est under s.144B(9) as it then stood. The Court warned that costs would be recovered from the Assessing Officer personally and entered in the service record if it recurred.
• Sanjay Aggarwal v National Faceless Assessment Centre High CourtHelps taxpayer
  You asked for a personal hearing and the faceless unit ignored it. Does 'may' mean they can?
  No. Section 144B(7) uses 'may', but that usage cannot absolve the Revenue of the obligation to consider a request for a personal hearing. The assessment order was set aside.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.