TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment Order Overturned for Breach of Natural Justice; Petitioner Granted Hearing and Four Weeks to Respond.</h1> <h3>INDERPAL SINGH SAYAN Versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.</h3> INDERPAL SINGH SAYAN Versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. - [2024] 462 ITR 220 (Del) Issues:The judgment concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 and is directed against the assessment order dated 03.03.2023 passed under Section 147, read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, challenge is laid to the notice dated 17.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) and the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Challenge is also laid to the consequential notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.Assessment Order and Allegations:The petitioner was alleged to have failed to disclose the entire sale consideration concerning certain properties, leading to an allegation of income escaping assessment. The assessment order highlighted a discrepancy in the sale consideration shown in the registered deed compared to the actual sale consideration, resulting in a shortfall that needed to be added back for calculating capital gains.Proceedings and Breach of Natural Justice:The petitioner responded to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, but the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) without granting sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to explain the alleged discrepancies. The AO's decision was based on the belief that income had escaped assessment due to high-value transactions involving a cash component.Judgment and Relief Granted:The court found that the petitioner was not adequately heard in defense of the allegations, leading to a breach of natural justice. As a result, the court set aside the impugned assessment order and related orders. The AO was directed to consider the petitioner's reply to the notice dated 17.02.2023, grant a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order. The consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was also invalidated, and the petitioner was given four weeks to respond to the notice dated 17.02.2023.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
