Procedural fairness in reassessment requires consideration of reply and clear hearing opportunity before Section 148A(d) action stands.

A reassessment order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were unsustainable where the Assessing Officer did not consider the assessee's reply and failed to clearly communicate rejection of an adjournment request or fix a definite further hearing date. The HC held that procedural fairness requires the assessee to be informed, by an effective mode such as e-mail or portal, either of the reasons for rejecting adjournment or of the specific date for further opportunity. As the reply was ignored and no clear opportunity was granted, the initiation of reassessment was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the reply after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the assessee's reply and failure to communicate rejection of adjournment or grant a specific opportunity to respond.

Analysis: The assessee had sought time and filed a reply before the Assessing Officer, but the reply was not considered while passing the order under Section 148A(d). A request for adjournment was neither expressly rejected by a reasoned communication nor followed by a specific next date, and the matter was taken up unilaterally. The Court held that once adjournment is sought, the assessee must be clearly informed either of rejection with reasons or of the specific date fixed for further hearing, and such communication should be made by an effective mode such as e-mail or portal. Proceeding without considering the reply and without affording a clear opportunity was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to consider the reply afresh after giving the assessee a specific opportunity to file additional submissions and to be heard.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was set aside for breach of procedural fairness, with the proceedings restored to the stage of consideration of the assessee's reply.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment step is taken without considering the assessee's reply and without clearly communicating rejection of adjournment or fixing a definite opportunity of hearing, the resulting order and consequential notice cannot be sustained.

---