Income Tax Orders Quashed for Lack of Hearing; Matters Sent Back for Reconsideration with New Procedural Guidelines.

The HC quashed the impugned orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of a personal hearing and non-application of mind. The matters were remanded to the JAO for reconsideration, requiring a reasoned order and a personal hearing. The JAO must provide a list of judgments relied upon, and the petitioner may submit written submissions post-hearing. These directions were uniformly applied to other related petitions with identical issues, ensuring a consistent procedural approach.

---

---

Issues:
1. Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and rejection of objections.
2. Lack of personal hearing and non-application of mind in passing the order.
3. Incorrect findings and mechanical passing of the order.
4. Quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Remanding the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
6. Providing a reasoned order and granting a personal hearing.
7. Requirement for JAO to provide a list of judgments relied upon.
8. Filing of written submissions post personal hearing.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent rejection of objections. The main contentions highlighted were the absence of a personal hearing before passing the order and the alleged non-application of mind in the decision-making process.

2. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed mechanically without considering the petitioner's contentions and without conducting a thorough enquiry. It was contended that incorrect facts were stated in the order, such as discrepancies in the amounts mentioned and findings not supported by the reasons recorded for reopening.

3. The Court acknowledged the lack of personal hearing and the errors in the impugned order, leading to the decision to quash and set aside the order dated 22/02/2022. The matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for further consideration.

4. The Court directed the JAO to dispose of the petitioner's objections within a specified timeframe, ensuring a reasoned order addressing all objections and granting a personal hearing. The petitioner was also given the right to file written submissions post the personal hearing.

5. Additionally, if the JAO intended to rely on any judgment, they were required to provide a list to the petitioner in advance of the personal hearing to allow for proper preparation and response during the hearing.

6. The Court extended these directions to other related petitions with identical grounds, ensuring consistency in the approach and process across all cases. The impugned orders in these petitions were also quashed and set aside, with the same procedural requirements applied to them.

---