Tax Orders Overturned: Senior Citizen Denied Fair Hearing and Details in Income Tax Case, Court Demands Clear Justification.

The HC quashed the assessment and adjudication orders against the petitioner, who challenged them due to a lack of due opportunity under the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the petitioner, a senior citizen, was not adequately informed of the alleged transactions and was not given a fair chance to respond. The respondent failed to provide necessary details and a personal hearing. The Court instructed the respondent to provide clear reasons for the proceedings and allowed the petitioner a reasonable timeframe to respond.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order, computation sheet, demand notice, penalty notices, adjudication order, and consequential notice under the Income Tax Act, alleging lack of due opportunity.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner contested the assessment order and adjudication order under Section 148A[d], citing lack of opportunity. The respondent issued a notice under Section 148A[b] regarding unfiled income tax return for a specific year, mentioning TDS on property purchase and post office deposits. The petitioner, a senior citizen, requested details and a personal hearing due to unfamiliarity with technology. The assessment order concluded lack of evidence on property purchase and post office deposit, based on no response from the petitioner.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner's counsel asserted that the petitioner did not engage in property transactions or post office deposits during the relevant year, requesting details for the notice issued under Section 148A[b]. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner's lack of response to the initial notice led to the adjudication order, and while acknowledging the lack of a personal hearing opportunity, emphasized the importance of requesting information upon receiving the notice.

Court Observations and Decision:
The Court noted the petitioner's denial of involvement in the transactions mentioned in the notice under Section 148A[b], attributing the lack of response to the petitioner's circumstances and lack of detailed information in the notice. It highlighted the necessity of providing details and an opportunity of hearing at the appropriate stages of the proceedings. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not adequately informed and granted partial relief by quashing the assessment and adjudication orders, instructing the respondent to provide reasons for the proceedings and allowing the petitioner to respond accordingly within a reasonable timeframe.

---