Court sets aside assessment orders and penalties due to lack of notice, violating natural justice. Assessing Officer to reinitiate proceedings.

The court allowed all petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and penalty impositions due to the lack of proper notice to the petitioner, which violated natural justice principles. The Assessing Officer was directed to reinitiate assessment proceedings within three months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard and rectifying procedural shortcomings in line with the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues:
- Assessment orders passed without serving notice to the petitioner
- Breach of natural justice in assessment and penalty orders
- Interpretation of Section 153C and Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment orders passed without serving notice to the petitioner
The petitioner's main argument was that assessment orders under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the Act were passed without serving any notice, denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The petitioner contended a breach of natural justice due to the lack of notice, which is a fundamental procedural requirement in tax assessments.

Issue 2: Breach of natural justice in assessment and penalty orders
The court acknowledged that the petitioner was not served with assessment orders or penalty notices, leading to a clear violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner discovered the orders only through an email communication, indicating a lack of proper notification and opportunity to present their case before the tax authorities.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 153C and Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 153C deals with the assessment of income of another person, allowing the Assessing Officer to proceed against such person based on seized assets or information. On the other hand, Section 144 outlines the best judgment assessment process, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard before making assessments.

The court found that in all the cases presented, no notice was served on the petitioner before passing assessment or penalty orders, contrary to the requirements of Section 144. As per Section 144B (6)(ii), proper delivery methods were not followed, leading to the petitioner's lack of awareness regarding the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the court allowed all petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and penalty impositions. The Assessing Officer was directed to reinitiate the assessment proceedings, ensuring proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to be heard within three months from the date of the order. This decision aimed to rectify the procedural shortcomings and uphold the principles of natural justice in tax assessments.

---