SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER- PAIN OR RELIEF?

Recently, numerous judgements have been passed by various High Courts against the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) under the Faceless Regime of Income Tax abruptly launched by the Central Government w.e.f. 13.08.2020.

Orders passed by NaFAC have either been set aside or remanded back on multiple grounds including non-issuance of a Draft Assessment Order as mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; for violation of principles of Natural Justice (Audi-alteram-partem) and not granting personal hearing to the taxpayers; for passing the final order prior to the due date for furnishing response to the Show Cause Notice.

Yet, one thing that amuses me the most is the fact that no High Court has passed a judgement quashing the assessment order, as section 144B very clearly provides that an order passed in violation of provisions of section 144B shall be non-est.

Also, no one has questioned or issued memos to the requisite officers or for that matter CBDT itself. Legislature is required to pass a law and provide a framework and it is only on the executive to execute the legislation. Yet, no prior training has been given to the ground level officers, who are actually assessing the income of the taxpayers under the veil of a computer screen namely, NaFAC, without equipping them with necessary means and know-how.

By setting aside or remanding back the order, directly or indirectly courts are providing additional time to the department barring the limitation period and more or less provides a super over like innings to the department to rectify/review/revise it’s own order.

I believe that courts should constitute a special bench and the matter be taken up to pass an order setting some judicial precedence providing legal relief to the taxpayers and questioning CBDT itself.