To
The Chairman
Central Board of Direct Taxes
North Block
New Delhi
Subject: Representation regarding
mechanical issuance of notices and non-consideration of responses under the
Faceless Assessment and Faceless Appeal Schemes
Respected Sir/Madam,
This representation is being made
to bring to the notice of the Board certain systemic and recurring issues being
observed in the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and Faceless
Appeal Scheme, which are affecting the efficacy and fairness of the process.
It has been noticed in a large
number of cases that responses filed by assessees to show cause notices are not
being meaningfully reviewed by the Assessing Officers or by the Commissioner
(Appeals) under the faceless framework. Despite detailed replies supported by
documentary evidence being uploaded within the stipulated time, fresh show
cause notices are issued on the same issues, often reproducing earlier
allegations verbatim, without addressing or dealing with the submissions
already on record.
Further, in cases where video
conferencing hearings are granted, it has been observed that the proceedings
often continue without consideration of the written replies already filed in
response to the show cause notice. In several instances, orders are passed
shortly after the scheduled video conference, reflecting that the submissions
made—both written and oral—have not been examined or appreciated. This creates
a perception that the opportunity of hearing is being granted as a procedural
formality rather than a substantive safeguard.
Such an approach dilutes the core
objectives of the faceless regime, which was introduced to ensure fairness,
transparency, accountability and reduction of arbitrary discretion. Mechanical
issuance of notices and non-speaking consideration of replies not only defeats
the principles of natural justice but also leads to avoidable litigation,
remands and adverse judicial observations, thereby increasing administrative
burden.
It is respectfully submitted that
the faceless system, while technologically robust, requires greater supervisory
checks and accountability mechanisms to ensure that officers meaningfully apply
their mind to the material placed on record before issuing further notices or
passing orders.
In this regard, it is humbly
suggested that the Board may consider issuing appropriate administrative
instructions or clarifications, inter alia, to ensure that:
1. Fresh notices are not issued on the
same issue unless earlier replies are specifically examined and reasons for
disagreement are recorded.
2. Orders passed under the faceless regime
expressly demonstrate consideration of the assessee’s submissions and evidence.
3. Video conferencing hearings are
conducted as a substantive hearing tool and not as a procedural formality.
4. Internal review or quality checks are
strengthened to curb mechanical and repetitive actions.
The above measures would go a
long way in reinforcing confidence in the faceless framework and aligning its
implementation with the legislative intent and constitutional principles of
fairness and natural justice.
We trust that the Board will
consider this representation in the right spirit and take appropriate steps to
address the concerns highlighted.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
0 Comments
Leave a Comment