Centre issues 1.2 lakh faceless assessment orders, but taxpayers hardly responding
The CBDT has sought cooperation from taxpayers for the process, failing which it will begin issuing orders ex-parte which could lead to a taxman on one's doorstep
April 08, 2021 / 09:40 AM IST
The Centre ha issued 1.2 lakh faceless assessment orders
The Centre has issued around 1.2 lakh order to taxpayers under its faceless assessment scheme.
There is, however, an issue. Many, whose cases were taken up under the scheme, are now not responding to the electronic notices, The Economic Times reported.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has thus now sought cooperation from taxpayers for the process, failing which it will begin issuing orders ex-parte which could lead to a taxman on one's doorstep, the report noted.
PC Mody, Chairman of the CBDT told the paper that people are unresponsive to their notices and if this continues, will likely result in ex-parte orders, which “ideally we do not want.”
“…we observed that people have not given email IDs. I hope people give their communication ID so that we do not have to resort to other means of communication — to visits,” he added.
The central government announced a shift to faceless assessment as a way to improve taxpayers experience following multiple harassment complaints against tax officers. It was initially focused on smaller cases which are larger in number, but Mody says there is “no restriction now.”
In light of people not responding however, Mody felt that visits are “not ruled out”, especially in the larger cases. Mody explained: “In one situation, where the person was not responding, we tried to do our back-end analysis. Ultimately, we had to carry out a search, which revealed undisclosed turnover of almost Rs 400 crore. I can now understand what the hesitation was in not responding. The option is always there. But I would want that option to be exercised in the rarest of rarest cases,” he said.
He further asked taxpayers to “address specific queries” from tax authorities and refrain from “un-parliamentary language” as was noticed in a few responses.