Filed documents and effective post-reply hearing are essential to sustain an assessment; otherwise remand follows.

Assessment orders could not stand where the record incorrectly stated that no supporting documents had been filed, despite acknowledgment evidence showing objections and documents were submitted; the matter required reconsideration on the materials actually filed. A general notice permitting appearance within a period was not an effective personal hearing, because a specific hearing after receipt of the reply was needed to discuss the proposal and objections meaningfully; this vitiated the assessment. The impugned orders were interfered with on these grounds and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment after considering the documents and granting an effective hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders could be sustained when the Assessing Officer recorded that no supporting documents had been filed, despite the petitioner's acknowledgment showing filing of objections with documents; (ii) Whether the petitioner was denied an effective personal hearing before completion of assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders could be sustained when the Assessing Officer recorded that no supporting documents had been filed, despite the petitioner's acknowledgment showing filing of objections with documents.

Analysis: The petitioner produced the acknowledgment in the letter delivery book evidencing filing of objections along with supporting documents. The factual finding in the assessment orders that no such documents were filed was therefore incorrect. The question whether those documents ultimately supported the petitioner's case was a matter that had to be examined on merits, after considering the materials actually placed before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The assessment could not be sustained on this issue and required reconsideration after taking the filed documents into account.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was denied an effective personal hearing before completion of assessment.

Analysis: A general indication in the notice of proposal that the petitioner may appear within a specified period was held insufficient as an effective opportunity of personal hearing. The hearing was required to be fixed after receipt of the reply so that the proposal and the objections could be meaningfully discussed. No such specific hearing date was given after the reply was filed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was denied an effective personal hearing, vitiating the assessment on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were interfered with only on the two identified issues, and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment after consideration of the filed documents and after affording an effective personal hearing, while the remaining issues were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment cannot be sustained where the authority ignores filed supporting documents and fails to grant a specific, meaningful post-reply personal hearing.

---