Court Sets Aside Assessment Order for Lack of Reasons. Respondent to Justify Within 15 Days.

The court set aside the assessment order as reasons for reopening were not provided to the petitioner. Respondent directed to furnish reasons within 15 days. Petitioner to file objections/reply within 30 days for reassessment in compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate. Writ petition allowed, no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Requirement to furnish reasons for reopening the assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 30.12.2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,94,980 and net agricultural income of Rs. 1,60,00,000. The respondent issued a notice under Section 148 on 08.06.2016, within four years from the end of the Assessment Year, for reopening the assessment, stating that there were reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The respondent followed up with notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) for further details. Despite several opportunities provided by the respondent, the petitioner failed to furnish the required documents timely. The reassessment order was passed on 19.12.2017, which the respondent claimed was valid as it was within the permissible period and no regular assessment under Section 143(3) had been made.

2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 violated the principles of natural justice as she was not given due opportunity to produce the documents. The respondent countered that sufficient opportunities were given, but the petitioner did not utilize them. The court noted that the petitioner was given multiple chances to submit the required documents and appear before the respondent, but failed to do so. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not given due opportunity was not accepted.

3. Requirement to furnish reasons for reopening the assessment:
The petitioner requested the reasons for reopening the assessment on 12.12.2017, but the Assessing Officer did not furnish these reasons. The court referenced the Supreme Court's mandate in GKM Drivershafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, which requires the Assessing Officer to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment when requested by the assessee. The court found that the respondent’s failure to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the petitioner was a significant procedural lapse.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 19.12.2017 on the ground that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not furnished to the petitioner. The respondent was directed to provide the reasons within 15 days of receiving a copy of the court's order. The petitioner was then instructed to file her objections/reply within 30 days of receiving the reasons, after which the respondent should reconsider and redo the assessment in compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate in GKM Drivershafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

---