TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reassessment and penalty orders quashed due to procedural unfairness; fair opportunity mandated for response to notice.</h1> <h3>Shree Vijayalaxmi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Hubli.</h3> Shree Vijayalaxmi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment ... Issues:1. Notice issued by the Income Tax Department to the petitioner based on an old PAN card.2. Alleged failure of the petitioner to update the department about the change in PAN card.3. Validity of reassessment order passed by the first respondent.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Notice issued based on old PAN cardThe petitioner, an Urban Credit Society, had obtained a new PAN card after converting itself under the Karnataka Souhard Act. Despite surrendering the old PAN card to the Income Tax Officer in 2012, the department issued notices for non-filing of returns using the old PAN number. The petitioner argued that it could not respond as the transactions were accounted for under the new PAN. The court found the notice to be ex-parte and ordered a remand to allow the petitioner to reply to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.Issue 2: Failure to update PAN card informationThe department contended that the notice was sent to the PAN available in their records, which was still linked to the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner was accused of not informing the department about the change in PAN number, leading to the confusion. The court acknowledged the discrepancy but granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the notice and set aside the assessment order, penalty, and demand notices.Issue 3: Validity of reassessment orderThe reassessment order passed by the first respondent under Section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was challenged by the petitioner. The court found the order to be based on the old PAN number and lacking proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the assessment order, penalty order, and demand notices were quashed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.Issue 4: Imposition of penaltyThe first respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.1,78,42,490 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was contested by the petitioner. The court set aside the penalty order along with the assessment order and demand notices, emphasizing the need for the department to consider the petitioner's responses and provide a fair opportunity for clarification.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the second respondent for appropriate action after giving the petitioner a chance to respond to the notice. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing on procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
