Company bound by power of attorney holder's acts despite claiming no knowledge of cash plot sales under section 147

The Rajasthan HC dismissed a writ petition challenging reopening of assessment under section 147 of the IT Act. The petitioner-company claimed no knowledge of 13 plots sold by their power of attorney holder for cash considerations. The HC held that the AO properly provided required information under section 148A, and detailed merit adjudication isn't required at this stage. The court ruled that under agency law, the company remains bound by acts of its power of attorney holder, regardless of claimed lack of knowledge. Any disputes regarding unauthorized acts by the power of attorney holder must be resolved elsewhere, not through writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company.
2. Consideration of the reply furnished by the petitioner-company.
3. Validity of the assessment proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Legal implications of actions taken by the power of attorney holder.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity of Hearing to the Petitioner-Company:
The petitioner-company argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the reassessment notice was issued. The Court clarified that under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, the requirement is to provide an opportunity of being heard through a show cause notice, not necessarily a personal hearing. The petitioner-company had indeed submitted a reply to the show cause notice, which was considered in the order dated 5th April 2024. The Court referenced the decision in "Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr." to emphasize that the principle of natural justice does not always require a personal hearing and must be applied in context.

2. Consideration of the Reply Furnished by the Petitioner-Company:
The petitioner-company contended that its reply was not considered. The Court found that the reply was perused and considered by the Assessing Officer (ACIT) in the order dated 5th April 2024. The Court noted that a detailed adjudication on the merits of the information available with the Assessing Officer and the defence set up by the assessee is not required at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d). The Court cited "GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors." to support this view and emphasized that the merits of the information are subject to the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.

3. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings under Section 148A:
The Court examined the statutory scheme under Chapter XIV of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Sections 147, 148, and 148A. It noted that the Assessing Officer is required to conduct an inquiry, provide an opportunity of being heard, consider the reply, and then decide whether to issue a notice under Section 148. The Court found that these procedural requirements were met in this case. The Court also referenced the decision in "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal" to highlight that the Assessing Officer must provide all information and materials to the assessee to enable an effective defence. The Court concluded that the procedural requirements under Section 148A were satisfied, and the assessment proceedings were valid.

4. Legal Implications of Actions Taken by the Power of Attorney Holder:
The petitioner-company argued that it had no knowledge of the sale of plots by the power of attorney holder, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Deora. The Court explained that under the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, an agent acting under a power of attorney acts in the name of the principal, and any document executed by the agent is as effective as if done by the principal. The Court referenced "State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Basant Nahata" and "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana" to support this view. The Court held that the petitioner-company is bound by the actions of the power of attorney holder and any dispute between the petitioner-company and the power of attorney holder is a separate issue. The Court concluded that the stand taken by the petitioner-company does not prevent the Revenue from proceeding against it.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner-company. The assessment proceedings under Section 148A were upheld as valid, and the petitioner-company was held accountable for the actions of its power of attorney holder. The decision emphasized the procedural compliance by the Revenue and the binding nature of actions taken by an agent under a power of attorney.

---