2019 (5) TMI 556 - HC - Income Tax

Court overturns re-assessment order and demand notice, emphasizes due process, sets new timeline for assessment

Mrs. Kanchan Agarwal Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 7 (2) (2), Bangalore

The court set aside the re-assessment order and demand notice, directing the proceedings to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer, taking into account ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons recorded for reopening the assessment related to the Assessment Year in question on 20.12.2018 - HELD THAT:- AO ought to have provided some breathing time to the petitioner to furnish the objections and then to have proceeded to conclude the re-assessment. On the day of furnishing the reasons recorded, the re-assessment order is said to have been passed. The copy of the re-assessment order made available before the court at Annexure-F to the writ petition does not bear the date of order. This court is of the considered view that the respondent AO has proceeded to conclude the re-assessment in a hasty manner. The preliminary objections filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2018 remains unconsidered as such, the re-assessment order cannot be held to be justifiable. Accordingly, the impugned re-assessment order at Annexure-F and the demand notice at Annexure-G are set-aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent-AO to redo the assessment considering the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons recorded by the respondent as per Annexure-E to the writ petition dated 27.12.2018 and conclude the assessment thereafter in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Issues:Challenge to re-assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14; Allegation of insufficient opportunity to file objections to reasons recorded for reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the re-assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14, along with the consequential demand notice issued. The petitioner filed the return of income on 31.07.2013 for the said assessment year, and the assessment proceedings were concluded under the mentioned sections. Subsequently, a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment. The petitioner requested the reasons for reopening on 20.12.2018, and the reasons were provided on 24.12.2018. The petitioner filed preliminary objections and explanations on 27.12.2018. However, the re-assessment proceedings were concluded by the respondent on 24.12.2018 without considering the preliminary objections, leading to the petitioner's grievance of insufficient opportunity to file objections.The counsel for the revenue justified the impugned order, stating that it was passed before the preliminary objections were submitted. The revenue's counsel argued that despite the reasons for reopening being provided multiple times, no objections were filed until after the re-assessment order was passed. The court considered both parties' submissions and the material on record. It noted that the petitioner requested the reasons for reopening on 20.12.2018, which were provided on 24.12.2018, and objections were filed on 27.12.2018. The court observed that the Assessing Officer should have allowed time for the petitioner to file objections before concluding the re-assessment. It was noted that the re-assessment order did not bear a date, indicating a hasty conclusion of the re-assessment proceedings.In light of the circumstances, the court found that the Assessing Officer had rushed the re-assessment process without considering the preliminary objections, rendering the re-assessment order unjustifiable. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned re-assessment order and demand notice, restoring the proceedings to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessment, taking into account the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner. The court directed the assessment to be concluded in accordance with the law, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order's copy. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.