2022 (3) TMI 483 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes assessment order, petitioner to submit objections, Assessing Officer to decide promptly.

Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (OSD), & Anr.

The court quashed the assessment order and directed the petitioner to submit objections within a week, with the Assessing Officer instructed to decide on ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - delay in furnishing the reasons - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that even if the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents are accepted, then also the delay in furnishing the reasons is completely attributable to National Faceless Assessment Centre i.e. the Income Tax Department. Further, in any event, the defence taken by learned counsel for the Respondents does not, in any manner, affect the Petitioner’s primary grievance that there has been a violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioner did not get reasonable time to file its objections to the reasons dated 23rd September, 2021. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 29th September, 2021 is quashed and the Petitioner is directed to file its objections to the reasons furnished by the Respondents on 23rd September, 2021 within a week. Assessing Officer is directed to decide the said objections by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law, within two weeks thereafter. Issues:Challenge to assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14 and demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act. Allegation of non-compliance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19. Lack of opportunity to file objections for re-opening of assessment. Allegation of insufficient and unreasonable opportunity of hearing during assessment proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 29th September, 2021, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14, along with the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the procedure established by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 was not followed, as the reasons to believe were provided after a significant delay of one and a half years. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that they were not granted an opportunity to file objections for the re-opening of the assessment, as notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued with a short deadline for response.The petitioner emphasized that the assessment proceedings were initiated just seven days before the limitation period was set to expire. The notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued on 23rd September, 2021, and the assessment order was passed on 29th September, 2021, within a short timeframe of three working days. The petitioner argued that this timeline did not allow for a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing, citing the judgment in Sona Builders v. UOI (2001) 251 ITR 197, where an order was set aside due to inadequate response time given to the assessee.After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court noted that even if the delay in furnishing reasons was due to the National Faceless Assessment Centre, it did not absolve the Income Tax Department from the violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court held that the petitioner did not receive reasonable time to file objections to the reasons provided on 23rd September, 2021. Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order dated 29th September, 2021, and directed the petitioner to submit objections within a week. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide on the objections within two weeks thereafter, following due process of law.In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice was disposed of with the directions for the petitioner to file objections and for the Assessing Officer to decide on them promptly and in compliance with legal requirements.