Petition Dismissed: Taxpayer Held Accountable for Ignoring Notices, Must File Appeal or Face Enforcement of Order.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's responsibility to respond to notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected claims of violation of natural justice and negligence by the Chartered Accountant, holding the petitioner accountable for non-compliance. The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the assessment order within a specified timeframe, failing which the respondent could enforce the order. The petitioner's challenge regarding the disallowance of deductions under Chapter 6A was also dismissed due to lack of evidence provided in response to multiple opportunities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Lack of personal hearing in assessment proceedings despite a specific request.
2. Disallowance of deduction under Chapter 6A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Failure to respond to notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Negligence of Chartered Accountant or Income Tax Practitioner.
6. Requirement of statutory appeal.

Issue 1: Lack of Personal Hearing
The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing the absence of personal hearing despite a specific request made in his reply. The respondent, in response, argued that multiple opportunities were granted to the petitioner to respond to notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent contended that the impugned assessment order was based on inflated expenditure declared by the petitioner in a revised annual return for the assessment year 2017-18.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction
The petitioner contested the disallowance of a sum under Chapter 6A of the Income Tax Act, which was not disclosed in the show cause notice. The respondent justified the disallowance, stating that the petitioner failed to provide proof for claiming deductions under relevant sections despite multiple opportunities granted.

Issue 3: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order violated the principles of natural justice due to the lack of personal hearing. The petitioner relied on a previous decision and emphasized the necessity of personal hearings when adverse views are contemplated. However, the court found that the petitioner's failure to respond to notices undermined the claim of denial of natural justice.

Issue 4: Failure to Respond to Notices
The respondent contended that the petitioner did not respond to notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, leading to the impugned assessment order. The petitioner's reliance on the negligence of the Chartered Accountant or Income Tax Practitioner was rejected, holding the petitioner responsible for non-compliance.

Issue 5: Negligence of Chartered Accountant
The petitioner attributed the lack of response to notices to the negligence of the Chartered Accountant or Income Tax Practitioner, but the court held the petitioner liable for the consequences of non-compliance. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal instead of opting for a writ petition.

Issue 6: Requirement of Statutory Appeal
The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the assessment order within a specified timeframe. While granting this limited relief, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice, emphasizing the importance of responding to official notices and following due process in tax matters.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal within the stipulated time, failing which the respondent could enforce the assessment order.

---