TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dated 31.03.2022, issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, issued by Respondent No.2. 2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 3. The main ground for challenge in this petition is, that the Respondent No.2 - The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(2), whilst dealing with the objections filed by the Petitioner to the notice for reopening of assessment and the final order of assessment dated 31.03.2022 alongwith the notice of demand and penalty notice are issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in the matter and all are passed contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. It is the Petitioner's case that it is a Co-operative Bank providing financial and banking services, and for that purpose, it is governed by the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and directions given by the Reserve Bank of India under that Act. It is further the Petitioner's case that for the Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14 to which, this petition pertains, the Respondent No.1 - The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(4), Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax, who had accorded approval to the reopening of the assessment. In its reply, it has also sought a copy of the appraisal report on the basis of which, reopening of assessment was ordered. There was no reply forthcoming from the Respondent No.2 to this letter, nor was the Petitioner provided with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or appraisal report. Thereafter, by Notice dated 24.02.2022, the Respondent No.2 fixed a hearing of the matter, without providing the documents demanded by the Petitioner on 28.02.2022. 7. By its letter dated 28.02.2022, the Petitioner once again referred to its earlier correspondence, wherein it had requested for a copy of the satisfaction note of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax alongwith a copy of approval granted by him for reopening of the assessment. It also reiterated its request for the appraisal report from the DDIT (Inv), Bhavnagar, referred to in the reasons recorded for reopening and for the bank statements of the paper concern M/S Sanyam Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner specifically took objection to proceed with the matter without providing these documents and requested for a virtual hearing thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... search and seizure operation had not been furnished to it; it also reiterated its request for cross-examination of the persons, whose statements had been recorded and on the basis of which, approval for reopening of the assessment was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax. This reply was also uploaded on 30.03.2022. 10. The Petitioner then states that it received impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022 reassessing its income for the assessment year 2013-14 claiming that an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- had escaped assessment and holding that the total taxable income of the Petitioner for that period was Rs.22,05,94,840/-. Alongwith the assessment order, the Petitioner was served with a notice of demand under Section 156, Penalty notice under Section 244 of the Act, and a notice Under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 11. After notice of the petition was issued, the revenue has opposed the admission of petition, primarily on the ground that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of an appeal under the Act, and as such, would operate as a bar to this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de letters dated 20.02.2022 and 27.01.2022. The learned Counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2022, passed in Writ Petition No.546 of 2022, in Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) and others, wherein this Court has given general directions to the revenue when dealing with cases of reopening of assessment under Section 148; that in Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) and others (supra), this Court has specifically directed that the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer for obtaining approval with the order of approval should be annexed to the communication regarding reasons for reassessment and that if the reasons make reference to any other document or a letter or a report, such portions which were with reference to the assessee should be reproducted in the notice; that a personal hearing shall be given and minimum seven working days advance notice of such personal hearing shall be granted. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has in complete violence of the directions of this Court, without furnishing a copy of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....personal hearing. In those circumstances, this Court held as under : "In the order passed on 17th December, 2021, rejecting the objections the Assessing Officer has not dealt with all these points. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to deal with all the submissions made by petitioner in its objections and not just brush aside uncomfortable objections under the carpet. We have to note that petitioner had, with the objections, also requested the Assessing Officer to provide photocopies of documents evidencing request sent by the Assessing Officer to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner in terms of Section 151(1) of the Act for obtaining an approval for re-opening of the assessment for the year under consideration and documents evidencing the approval received from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner. The Assessing Officer instead of providing these documents simply dismissed petitioner's request by saying it is purely an administrative matter and all correspondence have been made through system. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference to the assessee concerned could be redacted. (c) The order disposing the objections should deal with each objections and give proper reasons for the conclusion. (d) A personal hearing shall be given and minimum seven working days advance notice of such personal hearing shall be granted. (e) If the Assessing Officer is going to rely on any judgment/order of any Tribunal or Court reference/citation of these judgment/orders shall be provided alongwith notice for personal hearing so that the assessee will be able to deal with/distinguish these judgments/orders. A copy of this order be placed before the members of the Central Board of Direct Taxes who shall issue guidelines to all its officers based on the directions given above with clear instructions that they shall be strictly followed. We only hope that, this will reduce the same errors being repeated by the concerned revenue authorities and will not drive the assessee to rush to the court. Thereby, the burden on the court will also get reduced." 16. In the present case, the Assessing Officer appears to have acted in complete contravention of the general directions issued by this Court ....