Assessment order not time-barred but set aside for hasty completion without considering petitioner's representation

The Madras HC held that an assessment order dated 30.09.2021 was not time-barred as there was a presumption it was passed on that date, with email notification on 01.10.2021 and physical receipt on 05.10.2021. However, the court found the assessment was completed hastily without considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2021. To balance both parties' interests, the HC set aside the assessment order and remitted the case back to authorities to pass fresh orders on merits within six months.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order under Faceless Assessment Scheme, Compliance with Notices, Digital Signatures, Time Limit for Assessment, Circular Violation, Assessment Completion Date Discrepancy, Adequacy of Explanation for Assessment Order, Alternate Remedy under Section 246A.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the introduction of Faceless Assessment. The petitioner contended that the assessment was initially with the National e-Assessment Centre and later transferred to the first respondent, with whom they complied with queries. The petitioner argued that the Assessment Order was non-est in law as the time for assessment had expired on 30.09.2021. They also claimed the order was not digitally signed and sent via email after the expiry date, making it time-barred. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged a violation of a circular requiring the involvement of the range head in finalizing assessments transferred to the first respondent.

The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the Assessment Order date, indicating it was passed after the limitation period. They referred to the e-filing portal, suggesting the order was issued on 01.10.2021. The respondent's Senior Standing Counsel defended the Assessment Order, stating it was well-reasoned and based on available material. The counsel argued that the petitioner failed to provide adequate explanations, leading to the order's issuance. The respondents suggested the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the Appellate Commissioner.

After considering arguments and reviewing documents, the court found no conclusive evidence that the Assessment Order was passed after 30.09.2021. The court noted the order was emailed on 01.10.2021 and physically dispatched on 04.10.2021. While acknowledging the petitioner's representation was not fully considered, the court observed that the assessment was hurried to avoid time-bar constraints. To balance the interests of both parties, the court set aside the Assessment Order and remitted the case back to the respondents for reevaluation within six months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with these observations, without costs, and closed connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions.

---