Income Tax Order Quashed for 2009-10 Due to Notice Issues; New Hearing and Response Required Within Six Weeks.

The HC quashed the impugned order dated 30th December 2016 under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 due to non-receipt of notices and discrepancies in the One Time Settlement amount. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was directed to furnish all notices to the petitioner's advocate for response within two weeks. A personal hearing was mandated, after which the Assessing Officer must issue a reasoned order within six weeks. All consequential notices and demands were also quashed, with the HC clarifying that it did not opine on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues involved:
The impugning of an order under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 due to non-receipt of notices, passing of the impugned order based on time constraints and incomplete information, expiry of appeal filing time, discrepancy in the One Time Settlement amount, and the need for reconsideration of the assessment.

Non-receipt of Notices:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10, claiming that notices sent by the Assessing Officer were not received due to the death of one director and the company becoming non-functional. The impugned order noted that the notices came back undelivered, prompting the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment based on available information. The petitioner, Uma Devesh Ajmera, only became aware of the order in March 2020, after her personal account was attached by the Income Tax authorities.

Incomplete Information and Time Constraints:
The impugned order was passed based on the assumption that the assessee had entered into a One Time Settlement (OTS) with Union Bank of India for a substantial amount. However, the petitioner contended that the OTS amount was significantly lower than what was considered for assessment. The order was rushed due to the matter nearing the limitation period, leading to the assessment being completed to the best of the Assessing Officer's judgment.

Expired Appeal Filing Time and Discrepancy in OTS Amount:
Due to the delayed awareness of the order, the petitioner missed the deadline to file an appeal. The petitioner argued that the OTS amount with Union Bank of India was inaccurately stated in the impugned order, causing potential harm if the order was upheld. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for reassessment.

Judgment and Directions:
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30th December 2016. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was directed to provide copies of all notices to the petitioner's advocate, who would then reply and provide necessary details within two weeks. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer was instructed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks after a personal hearing with the petitioner, considering all submissions. Consequential Notices/Demands issued were also quashed, with a clarification that the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

---