Court sets aside assessment orders due to procedural violations, emphasizes due process and independent assessment

The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and directing reassessment within six weeks. The decision emphasized the importance of due process, independent assessment by Assessing Officers, and the mandatory nature of providing a personal hearing. The court found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on Enforcement Wing reports without addressing objections and failure to provide a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice, rendering the orders unsustainable. The decision highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of Assessing Officers and their obligation to independently assess situations.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against assessment orders based on Enforcement Wing report without considering objections and lack of personal hearing opportunity.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders for various assessment years, contending that the Assessing Officer solely relied on the report from Enforcement Wing Officials, ignoring objections raised and violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that failure to consider objections and lack of a personal hearing before imposing penalties rendered the orders unsustainable. The counsel cited a previous court decision to support their argument.

The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the petitioner's admission of liability and partial tax payment but did not dispute the Assessing Officer's failure to address objections or provide a personal hearing. Both parties' arguments were heard by the court.

The court noted that the petitioner had responded to the proposal notices with detailed objections, which were not adequately addressed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned orders. The Assessing Officer primarily relied on the petitioner's admission during inspection, disregarding the objections raised. The court emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to independently assess the situation, uninfluenced by external reports or instructions.

Referring to precedent cases, the court highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of Assessing Officers and their obligation to exercise independent judgment. Failure to provide a personal hearing, as mandated by a circular, further weakened the validity of the impugned orders. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders and directing a reassessment by considering objections and providing a personal hearing within six weeks.

In conclusion, the court's decision emphasized the importance of due process, independent assessment by Assessing Officers, and the mandatory nature of providing a personal hearing, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders for reassessment.

---