Court sets aside assessment order, remands for fresh consideration due to violation of natural justice principles.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court found a violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing and the respondent failed to address the petitioner's arguments adequately. The Court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and address all contentions within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with legal provisions and the right to be heard.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to re-assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018 based on violation of principles of natural justice, lack of personal hearing, failure to consider benefits under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, and incorrect application of amendments to the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the re-assessment order on various grounds, including the violation of natural justice principles by not providing sufficient opportunity and not granting a personal hearing as required under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed that the cash deposit was made under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme, 2016, and should not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider the amendment to Section 115BBE, which was not applicable to the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner also contended that the respondent lacked authority to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 144 without proper legal basis.

In response, the respondent stated that despite the petitioner's admission of a cash deposit under the scheme, there were other unexplained deposits for which no explanation was provided. The respondent issued notices and show cause notices to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the ex parte assessment order under Section 144. The respondent argued that the amendment to Section 115BBE should be applied retrospectively and that the petitioner's contentions regarding amendments and e-proceedings were not valid.

The Court noted that the petitioner's arguments were not considered in the assessment order, and no personal hearing was provided, indicating a violation of natural justice principles. The Court found that the respondent failed to address the petitioner's claims regarding the benefits under the scheme and the applicability of amendments correctly. Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, directing the respondent to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to address all contentions within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the assessment order and ordering a fresh consideration by the respondent with proper adherence to principles of natural justice and legal provisions, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard and all contentions to be addressed comprehensively.

---