2022 (2) TMI 987 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition challenging assessment order dismissed under Income Tax Act for 2018-19

CHAMS BRANDING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner's claim of ... Rectification of mistake - Validity of assessment - Petitioner alleges that the order of assessment is bad in law since no notices other than the one under section 142(1) of the Act was ever served upon it and hence there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for more reasons than one. The assessment order under challenge was issued after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including various notices issued under sections 143 and 142 of the Act. Petitioner had not replied to any of those notices. Petitioner cannot thereafter, turn around and contend that it was not granted an opportunity or that there was any violation of principles of natural justice. Though the last notice issued to the petitioner was on 12.03.2021, requiring it to reply on 14.03.2021, which in strict senso may not appear to be a reasonable or sufficient period to submit a reply, considering the background of the case and the repeated failure of the petitioner to respond to any of the six prior notices issued on 28.09.2019, 24.12.2019, 04.03.2020, 28.07.2020, 17.12.2020 and 18.02.2021, petitioner cannot claim the benefit of violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner's conduct reveals its adamant approach to refrain from responding to notices. The absence of pleading about the five notices issued to the petitioner and the omission to reveal in the writ petition, the receipt of notices is singularly detrimental to the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner asserted that it had not received any notice other than the notice dated 24.12.2019. Petitioner failed to divulge the receipt of five other notices. This conduct also must deprive the petitioner of the benefit of exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, though the assessment order contains a technical issue in the computation statement, that is a matter which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act and hence the same need not be considered under Article 226 . Issues:Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeThe petitioner, involved in the business of Advertisement, filed returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and received a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act on 24.12.2019. The petitioner claimed that no other notices were served other than the one dated 24.12.2019. However, an assessment order was issued on 15.03.2021, leading to a huge demand. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was bad in law due to the lack of other notices, thus violating natural justice principles.Analysis:The second respondent stated that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to submit details through various notices issued on different dates. Despite these opportunities, the petitioner failed to respond to any of the notices. The assessment order was issued based on the petitioner's non-compliance with providing necessary details, as highlighted in the statement filed by the second respondent.Judgment:The court, after hearing arguments from both parties, concluded that the petitioner's claim of a violation of natural justice principles was not valid. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunities to respond to the notices issued under sections 143 and 142 of the Act but failed to do so. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct of consistently ignoring notices undermined the claim of lack of opportunity or violation of natural justice. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner can pursue statutory remedies.Conclusion:The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and responding to official communications in legal proceedings. It underscores the significance of engaging with the assessment process and complying with requests for information to avoid adverse outcomes.