2023 (2) TMI 1021 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns 2022 order for 2017-2018 assessment year, citing lack of natural justice. Assessing Officer to issue new order.

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Sons (HUF) Versus Union of India And Ors.

The High Court of Calcutta set aside the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018 due to a violation of the principle of ... Validity of reopening of assessment - violation of principle of natural justice - non considering the objection filed by the petitioner against the notice under Section 148A(b) and also said order is in violation of principle of natural justice by not affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in spite of specific request - HELD THAT:- Income Tax Authority is not in a position to contradict the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner. We set aside the aforesaid impugned order and all subsequent notices only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Issues: Challenge to impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 for assessment year 2017-2018 on grounds of not considering objections filed by petitioner and violation of principle of natural justice.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta, in the case at hand, examined a writ petition challenging an order dated 29th July, 2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contested the order on the basis that it was issued without taking into account the objections raised against the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner alleged a violation of the principle of natural justice, asserting that no opportunity of hearing was provided despite a specific request. The respondent, represented by Mr. Rai, did not contest these claims. In light of the circumstances and without delving into the merits of the impugned order, the Court decided to set aside the order and all subsequent notices. This decision was primarily due to the identified violation of the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a directive to issue a fresh speaking order in compliance with the law. The Assessing Officer was instructed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. The Court's ruling effectively disposed of the writ petition with the mentioned observations.