Natural justice and agency in tax filings: assessee remains bound by returns filed through consultant absent proven bias or perversity.

Natural justice was not violated where opportunity had been granted but the assessee failed to produce books of account or other relevant evidence, so the grievance of denial of hearing was unsupported. An assessee also remained bound by returns and refund claims filed in its name through a tax consultant acting as agent, especially where the documents bore the assessee's signatures and the claimed benefit would accrue to it. Allegations of prejudice, bias, or perversity required foundational material and evidence of a finding contrary to record; absent such support, no interference was warranted. The article notes that these principles led to rejection of the challenge and the tax demand order being left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity and whether the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice; (ii) whether the assessee could avoid the consequences of returns and refund claims filed through the tax consultant acting as the assessee's agent; (iii) whether allegations of prejudice or perversity in the impugned order were made out.

Issue (i): whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity and whether the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The appeal record showed that opportunity had been granted, but the assessee did not produce the books of account or other relevant evidence even at the appellate stage. The grievance of denial of opportunity was therefore unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and the finding stood against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee could avoid the consequences of returns and refund claims filed through the tax consultant acting as the assessee's agent.

Analysis: The returns and records were filed in the assessee's name and bore the assessee's signatures in the normal course. The consultant acted as the assessee's agent, and the inflated turnovers and refund claim could not be dissociated from the assessee when the benefit of the claim would accrue to the assessee. The Court treated the attempt as an impermissible attempt to shift responsibility for the claimed figures.

Conclusion: The assessee remained bound by the acts and declarations made through the tax consultant, and no relief was available on that basis.

Issue (iii): whether allegations of prejudice or perversity in the impugned order were made out.

Analysis: The allegations of a prejudicial mind were held to be unsupported by any foundational material. No perversity was shown, and no finding in the impugned order was demonstrated to be contrary to the evidence or unsupported by record.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of bias or perversity failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on all material grounds, and the tax demand order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax assessee cannot secure relief by blaming the consultant where the returns were filed in the assessee's name and opportunity to produce evidence was available but not utilised; allegations of bias must rest on foundational facts, and absent demonstrated perversity the appellate court will not interfere.

---