Court sets aside assessment orders due to lack of natural justice, directs new assessment with fair hearing

The Court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's delay in responding was due to the Accountant's demise, not negligence. The Court found the Assessing Officer's reliance on the absence of a reply unreasonable and insufficient. It directed the petitioner to pay 10% of tax liability for each year and undergo a fresh assessment with proper opportunity for a genuine personal hearing. The assessment orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer under specific conditions for a fair assessment process, subject to restoration of original orders upon non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment orders

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged assessment orders for the years 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed that their reply was not considered before passing the orders and that no personal hearing was afforded.

2. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not respond within the stipulated time after receiving the notice of proposal. It was contended that the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity for a personal hearing as mentioned in the notice.

3. The Court noted that the petitioner's Accountant, who received the notice, passed away, leading to a delay in filing the reply. However, the Assessing Officer did not receive the reply, even though a copy was included in the documents.

4. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment solely based on the absence of a reply from the petitioner, without considering the merits of the case. The respondent's argument that the opportunity for personal hearing was given was deemed insufficient by the Court.

5. The Court emphasized that a genuine personal hearing should involve both parties debating the issue effectively. Therefore, it directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the tax liability for each year and present their case before the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment orders.

6. The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer with specific conditions for a fair assessment process. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in the restoration of the original assessment orders.

---