Assessment orders overturned due to procedural errors and lack of opportunity for response

The Court set aside the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 due to violations of natural justice principles. It found that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to respond to show cause notices, leading to ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer's errors in assessing property purchase details were noted, with insufficient explanations from the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper assessment following due procedures, granting the petitioner four weeks to respond. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs incurred.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment orders challenged for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; Violation of principles of natural justice; Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act; Revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act; Adequacy of opportunity for the petitioner to respond; Allegations of errors in the assessment order; Failure to follow procedures under Section 144 B of the IT Act; Discrepancies in property purchase details; Unexplained sources of funds; Faceless Assessment Centre procedures; Failure to respond to show cause notices; Principles of natural justice not followed.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, alleging violations of natural justice principles. The assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the IT Act, leading to revisional proceedings under Section 263 initiated by the third respondent.

2. The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the determination of taxable income.

3. The Principal Commissioner invoked Section 263 of the IT Act, finding errors in the Assessing Officer's order related to the purchase of a property in Chennai. The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies in property value and sources of funds.

4. The case was transferred to the Faceless Assessment Centre, where show cause notices were issued. The petitioner failed to respond adequately to these notices, leading to draft assessment orders and final orders being passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions.

5. The Court found that the petitioner was not given sufficient time to respond to the show cause notices, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. Citing previous judgments, the Court set aside the assessment orders and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to make objections, provide documents, and conduct a proper assessment following due procedures.

6. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks to file a reply and directed the Assessing Authority to consider the petitioner's submissions before passing a new order. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs incurred, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---