Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 53 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn More25. Pico Capital Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT Circle – 8(2)(1) &Ors.
[WP(L) No. 15940 OF 2024]
Dated: 7th January, 2025. (Bom) (HC)
Section 143(3) r.w.s. 148: Reopening of assessment — Assessment completed — Petitioner had explicitly sought for a personal hearing — Not granted - breach of the principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 26th March, 2024 and notice dated 31st March, 2023 disposing of objections under Section 148A(d) of the Act. However, the Court considered the challenge to the assessment order dated 26th March, 2024 on the ground that it was made in breach of the principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner, in reply to the show cause notice, had explicitly sought for a personal hearing. There is no dispute on this aspect. However, the impugned order stated video conferencing was not required.
The Court noted that though a personal hearing was sought, the same had been denied to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner would have nothing further to add to the reply already filed by the Petitioner. The Court noted that such an approach, would