High Court sets aside revisional authority's ex parte assessment, stresses independent review, and compliance with natural justice principles.

The High Court set aside the revisional authority's order in a case where the assessee was assessed ex parte for non-appearance. The court emphasized the need for the revisional authority to independently assess the legality of the assessing officer's order and ensure compliance with natural justice principles. The court directed a re-examination within specified legal parameters, excluding the non-appearance issue, to be completed within 8 weeks. If the assessee fails to appear, the authority can proceed following due legal procedures. No costs were awarded in the disposed writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment conducted ex parte due to non-appearance of the assessee, Jurisdiction of the revisional authority under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, Violation of principles of natural justice in the revisional process.

Analysis:
1. The High Court examined a case where the assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1992-93 ex parte as they failed to appear despite notices. The court found no procedural impropriety in this ex parte assessment.

2. The assessee had appealed against the assessment order, but later withdrew the appeal to file a revisional application. The High Court scrutinized the revisional authority's order challenged by the assessee, focusing on whether the authority properly exercised jurisdiction under section 264 of the IT Act.

3. The petitioner argued that they were unable to appear before the authority due to illness and employee misconduct, denying them the opportunity to be heard. The court acknowledged the argument but emphasized that the revisional authority should have independently assessed the legality and validity of the assessing authority's order.

4. While the court refrained from directly evaluating the legality of the assessing officer's order, it highlighted the importance of the revisional authority ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The court noted that the revisional authority failed to address crucial legal aspects beyond the non-appearance issue.

5. The respondents contended that the revisional authority's decision was justified as the petitioner repeatedly ignored AO notices. However, the court disagreed, stating that the revisional authority must examine the legality and validity of the order, especially when issues of natural justice are raised.

6. The court emphasized that the revisional authority should have independently assessed the legality of the assessing officer's order based on available materials. Since the revisional authority failed to do so, the court intervened using its writ jurisdiction to set aside the revisional order and instructed a re-examination within the legal framework.

7. Consequently, the court directed the revisional authority to re-evaluate the matter within the specified legal parameters, excluding the non-appearance issue. The authority was given a deadline of 8 weeks to complete the re-examination after notifying the assessee or their representative.

8. The court clarified that if the assessee or their representative fails to appear despite notice, the revisional authority can proceed with the matter in their absence following due legal procedures. The writ petition was disposed of with no cost orders issued.

---