2022 (1) TMI 555 - HC - Income Tax

Judicial rebuke for non-compliance and abuse of process in Assessment Order

The Court found the Respondents' non-compliance with orders and lack of application of mind to be an abuse of process, leading to wasted judicial time and ... Order Passed as per draft Assessment - Order assessment completed as per the draft Assessment Order - cutting and pasting the draft Assessment Order - Petitioner explained why it could not respond earlier and also showed cause as to why the order as per draft Assessment Order should not be passed but notwithstanding this reply, Respondents have gone ahead and passed the impugned order - HELD THAT:- In our view, there has been total non-application of mind and we would add gross abuse of process by Respondents. Due to the actions / inaction of Respondents, parties are made to incur substantial legal costs and Court’s judicial time has also been wasted. It is another case in which, in our view, costs have to be imposed on the Assessing Officer hoping that the concerned parties will also take action against the Assessing Officer for passing such orders without application of mind.4. Assessment Order dated 23/09/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer, who will not be the same officer who passed the earlier Assessment Order, shall consider the reply filed by Petitioner on 12/05/2021 and pass an Assessment Order as he deems fit in accordance with law, within 8 weeks from the time this order gets uploaded but before passing the order shall give a personal hearing to Petitioner. Issues:1. Non-compliance with orders by the Assessing Officer2. Lack of application of mind by the Respondents3. Wastage of judicial time and incurring legal costs4. Quashing of Assessment Order and remand for de novo consideration5. Imposition of costs on the Assessing Officer6. Quashing of notices issued under Sections 156 and 270A7. Direction for the Assessing Officer to donate to P. M. Cares FundAnalysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of non-compliance with orders by the Assessing Officer, highlighting the disregard for orders and ineptitude. The Petitioner responded to a draft Assessment Order but was not granted a personal hearing, and the Respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the response. The Court found a total non-application of mind and an abuse of process by the Respondents, leading to wasted judicial time and legal costs incurred by the parties.2. The lack of application of mind by the Respondents is emphasized in the judgment, pointing out the failure to consider the Petitioner's response and grant a personal hearing. The Court deemed this as a gross abuse of process, necessitating the quashing and setting aside of the Assessment Order dated 23/09/2021. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration by a different Assessing Officer, emphasizing the importance of complying with legal procedures and providing a fair opportunity for parties to be heard.3. In addressing the issue of wasted judicial time and incurring legal costs, the judgment imposes costs on the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for accountability and proper conduct in carrying out assessments. By quashing the Assessment Order and directing a fresh consideration, the Court aims to rectify the errors and ensure a fair and just assessment process moving forward.4. The judgment also deals with the quashing of notices issued under Sections 156 and 270A, further emphasizing the need for adherence to legal requirements and due process. By setting aside these notices, the Court reinforces the importance of following statutory provisions and ensuring that actions are taken in accordance with the law.5. Additionally, the judgment directs the Assessing Officer to donate a sum to the P. M. Cares Fund as a form of penalty for the lapses in the assessment process. This directive serves as a deterrent against future misconduct and underscores the significance of upholding integrity and diligence in official duties.6. Overall, the judgment highlights the significance of procedural compliance, fair consideration of responses, and accountability in administrative actions, aiming to uphold the principles of justice and efficiency in the assessment process.