Court sets aside assessment order, demands reevaluation, citing natural justice violation. Parties' rights preserved.

The Court set aside the assessment order and demand notice, remanding the matter back to the respondent to consider the objections in accordance with the law. The Court found a violation of natural justice as detailed objections were not addressed before issuing the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order and noted inadequate response time. The Court did not comment on the controversy's merit, leaving all parties' rights and contentions open. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenging reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17; validity of notice issuance date; respondent's notice seeking clarifications with a blank annexure; consideration of objections in passing assessment order; violation of natural justice in issuing show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order; adequacy of opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the reassessment notice dated 31st March, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17, along with the assessment order dated 31st March, 2022. The petitioner argued that despite the notice being dated 31st March, 2021, and emailed at 11:36 PM on the same day, it should be considered served on 1st April, 2021, citing a relevant court decision. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted issues with a notice dated 28th November, 2021, which lacked a proper annexure for response, and that their objections raised in a reply dated 14th March, 2022, were not considered in the assessment order.

The petitioner further contended that a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated 30th March, 2022, was issued in violation of natural justice principles, as it was made available on the Income Tax Portal with a short response time, without direct intimation to the petitioner. The respondent argued that despite providing multiple opportunities, the petitioner responded only at the last moment. The Court acknowledged that the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was dispatched within the limitation period, denying the petitioner the benefit of a previous court judgment.

However, the Court found a violation of natural justice as the detailed objections filed by the petitioner were not addressed before issuing the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order. It also noted that the petitioner was not given adequate time to respond to the notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order and demand notice, remanding the matter back to the respondent to consider the objections in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merit of the controversy, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of with these directions.

---