TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner, submits that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice, and as such, the assessment order has been passed in violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice. He further submits that the show cause notice was issued on 13th March, 2023, at around 20:02 hours, granting time to respond only until 18:00 hours on 17th March, 2023. 3. He draws the attention of this Court to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) formulated by the respondents, wherein it has been stipulated that a minimum period of seven days shall be afforded to the assessee to respond to a show cause notice from the date and time of its issuance. However, he contends that the concerned authority without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Act. 7. He submits that, in the present case, as there existed sufficient reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the respondent authority proposed a variation in the returned income and accordingly initiated proceedings to reassess the income-tax return filed by the petitioner. 8. He contends that the reassessment was carried out under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. However, prior to initiating reassessment, the procedures prescribed under Section 148A and subsequently under Section 148 were duly followed. Drawing my attention to the relevant provisions of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, he submits that where a variation is proposed, the assessee must be afforded an opportunity to submit a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reasoned assessment order. 11. He submits that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) adopted by the department is intended merely to serve as a guiding framework for the Assessing Officer, and does not confer any enforceable right upon the assessee. Therefore, any alleged breach or non-compliance with the SOP, by itself, cannot render the assessment order invalid. In support of his submission, he refers to an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, rendered in ITAT/241/2024 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. P.L. Goenka HUF). 12. Heard the learned advocates representing both the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. Undoubtedly, a Stan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal breach of natural justice does not, by itself, vitiate an order. Rather, the validity of such an order must be assessed on the touchstone of 'prejudice.' The ultimate and determinative test is whether the person concerned has suffered actual prejudice or has been denied a fair hearing. Consequently, a bald plea of violation of natural justice is insufficient unless the person asserting it is able to demonstrate that he has, in fact, suffered prejudice as a result. In the absence of such prejudice, no interference with the order is warranted. 16. In the present case, as noted earlier, notices under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were duly issued to the petitioner. The petitioner received all such notic....