Court sets aside assessment order for 2012-2013 due to natural justice violation, remits matter to Assessing Officer.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013 due to a violation of principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with specific conditions: the petitioner was granted two weeks to respond to the second notice, followed by a scheduled personal hearing. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders within four weeks after the personal hearing, with the Court refraining from expressing any opinion on the assessment's merits. No costs were awarded, and the miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 24.01.2018 for the assessment year 2012-2013, primarily on the grounds of a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order should be set aside as the respondent failed to consider the reason for not filing a reply to the second notice and also did not provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. On the other hand, the Government Advocate contended that since the petitioner did not respond to the second notice, the Assessing Officer was justified in completing the assessment based on the reply already filed.

The Assessing Officer had issued the first notice of proposal on 05.10.2017, to which the petitioner responded on 16.10.2017. Subsequently, a second notice was issued on 14.11.2017, requesting additional details, to which the petitioner did not reply. The petitioner explained in an affidavit that the delay was due to the Managing Director's illness with cancer and the other Director being preoccupied with her treatment. Supporting documents, like the PET-CT report, were provided to substantiate this claim. The Court found that the petitioner had a justifiable reason for not responding to the second notice within the stipulated time.

In light of the circumstances, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with specific conditions: the petitioner was given two weeks to respond to the second notice, following which a personal hearing would be scheduled. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders within four weeks after the personal hearing. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the assessment's merits, leaving it to the respondent to decide. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---