Court sets aside Assessment Order under Income Tax Act due to procedural fairness concerns.

The court set aside the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2021 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the respondent's failure to respond to the petitioner's adjournment request, which was made for valid reasons related to COVID-19 and festival commitments. The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and ensuring procedural fairness. Penalty proceedings and demand notices were also revoked, with directions for the assessing officer to allow the petitioner an opportunity to respond, including a personal hearing if requested, and to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order under Income Tax Act, 1961 - Legality and Validity of Assessment Order dated 27.03.2021 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2021 under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed the return for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, which was selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued under various sections, leading to a final show cause notice on 25.03.2021 with a Draft Assessment Order proposing modifications and additions to the income, resulting in a significant increase in the total income assessed.

2. The petitioner sought an adjournment on 26.03.2021 until 10.04.2021 due to COVID-19 related issues affecting partners and the festival of Holi, but the respondent proceeded with the Assessment Order on 27.03.2021 without responding to the adjournment request. The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash the order and restrain further actions.

3. The Income Tax Officer contended that the petition was premature as alternative remedies were available. The petitioner argued that the denial of the adjournment request was unlawful, supported by evidence from the ITBA portal. The court examined the response to the adjournment request and the validity of the Assessment Order in light of procedural requirements.

4. The court highlighted the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee when proposing variations prejudicial to their interests. It noted the short time given to respond to the Draft Assessment Order and the adjournment request made by the petitioner due to genuine reasons related to COVID-19 and festival commitments.

5. The court found that the respondent's failure to respond to the adjournment request and provide a reasonable time for the petitioner to respond violated procedural requirements under the Act. The Assessment Order was set aside, along with penalty proceedings and demand notices. The assessing officer was directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing if requested, and decide the matter in accordance with the law.

6. Direct service through speed post and e-mode was permitted in addition to regular modes of service to ensure effective communication in future proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and providing adequate opportunities to parties involved in assessment proceedings.

---