Petition challenging reassessment under sections 147 and 144 dismissed for failing to file return after section 148 notice

The HC dismissed a petition challenging reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 144. The petitioner failed to file return after receiving notice under section 148 and did not request reasons for reopening within prescribed time. The court held that without filing return or treating original return as response to section 148 notice, the petitioner could not challenge proceedings on grounds of non-provision of reasons for reopening. The assessment was completed on best judgment basis due to non-compliance. The court found no prejudice in denial of cross-examination opportunity and noted adequate opportunity was provided to submit evidence of civil work execution, which petitioner failed to utilize effectively.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-provision of reasons for re-opening the assessment.
2. Non-provision of statements relied upon by the assessing officer.
3. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's husband.
4. Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) following Section 142(1) notice.
5. Timeliness and procedural fairness of the assessment order.

Summary:

1. Non-provision of reasons for re-opening the assessment:
The petitioner contended that the reasons for re-opening the assessment were not provided, violating the Supreme Court's directive in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer. The Court noted that under Section 148, the petitioner had the option to file a revised return or request that the original return be treated as the response to the notice, which the petitioner did not do. Consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference on this ground.

2. Non-provision of statements relied upon by the assessing officer:
The petitioner argued that the statements, particularly from M/s.Meenakshi Timber & Plywood, were not provided. The Court examined the statement and found it indicated that the petitioner's proprietary concern executed the work. Thus, the Court concluded that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by not providing the statement.

3. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's husband:
The petitioner's husband stated he had no experience in mass excavation and sand filling. The Court held that the denial of cross-examination did not warrant interference under Article 226, as no real prejudice was demonstrated by the petitioner.

4. Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) following Section 142(1) notice:
The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 142(1) was not followed by a notice under Section 143(2). The Court noted that due to the non-filing of the return, the assessment was made on a best judgment basis under Section 144, and thus, the impugned order does not call for interference on this ground.

5. Timeliness and procedural fairness of the assessment order:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was issued five days before the court-imposed deadline and that a second remand should not be made. The Court found no statutory or precedential support for the broad proposition against a second remand and concluded that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. Thus, the assessment order does not warrant interference.

Conclusion:
The impugned assessment order dated 16.12.2021 does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is advised to file a statutory appeal. Consequently, the challenge to the penalty order also fails. Both writ petitions are dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

---