Court sets aside assessment order, directs fresh consideration, cross-examination, and compliance with natural justice.

The court set aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2006 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to furnish all copies of the seized documents to the petitioner and provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The court allowed the Writ Petition with no costs, ensuring that the assessment would be redone following the principles of natural justice and the ITAT's directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment order dated 30.03.2006 for the Assessment Year 1987-88.
2. Compliance with the directions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the assessment order dated 30.03.2006 for the Assessment Year 1987-88:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30.03.2006, arguing that it was issued without following the specific directions given by the ITAT. The assessment order was initially completed on 27.03.1989, reopened on 13.09.1989, and reassessed on 31.03.1992. The ITAT had set aside these orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, but the petitioner contended that the assessment order dated 30.03.2006 did not comply with these directions.

2. Compliance with the directions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT):
The ITAT had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to furnish all copies of the seized material and provide the petitioner with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The petitioner argued that these directions were not followed, as the AO did not provide all the documents and did not allow for cross-examination. The respondent claimed that they had complied with the ITAT's directions, but the court found that the AO had erroneously followed the earlier orders dated 31.03.1992 and 30.07.2003, which had been set aside by the ITAT.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The court noted that the respondent failed to furnish the copies of the seized documents to the petitioner and did not follow the ITAT's directions. This constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case. The court emphasized the need for the AO to follow the directions of the higher appellate authority without taking a divergent view.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent argued that the petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of a Writ Petition. However, the court held that since there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the respondent had followed orders that were set aside by the ITAT, the Writ Petition was maintainable. The court cited previous judgments to support this view, emphasizing that when an impugned order is made in violation of natural justice, the aggrieved party can approach the court directly.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2006 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to furnish all copies of the seized documents to the petitioner and provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The petitioner was instructed to provide the address of V.K.Berlia to facilitate his examination. The court allowed the Writ Petition with no costs, ensuring that the assessment would be redone following the principles of natural justice and the ITAT's directions.

---