2013 (5) TMI 122 - HC - Income Tax

Finalization of Assessment U/s 153 A read with Section 143 of the Income Tax Act - The proceedings could not be finalised within the time stipulated, time was sought to be extended by filing separate applications and the extension of time sought for was granted by this Court - Held that - There was no need, necessity or occasion for the petitioners to have submitted any written submissions either on 10.1.203 or on any other date before 17.1.203, so long as the petitioners desired the matter to be presented through the authorised representative. This Court finds that the proceeding finalised by the second respondent by passing Ext.P3 order is not liable to be sustained any more, for having virtually denied an effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the impugned orders - Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions, are set aside - The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - The proceedings as above shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - It is made clear that the petitioners shall make appropriate arrangements to appear in the hearing to be fixed by the second respondent, either in person or through an authorised representative, without seeking for any adjournment, unless for compelling reasons to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The interim order passed by this Court vide Exts.P2/P2A will continue till such time - Both the writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment under Section 153 A read with Section 143 of the Income Tax Act - Denial of effective opportunity of hearing by the second respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment involved two inter-linked cases filed by a husband and wife challenging their assessment under Section 153 A read with Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners approached the High Court due to coercive proceedings and sought relief through writ petitions. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to pass final orders within a stipulated time, which was later extended. Despite appearing for a hearing on 10.1.2013, the petitioners were not given further notice, and the proceedings were finalized behind their back on 17.1.2013, leading to the challenge in the writ petition.

The respondents argued that the petitioners had multiple opportunities for a hearing, but failed to utilize them effectively. It was claimed that the second respondent finalized the proceedings due to the petitioners' inaction. However, the Court disagreed with this assertion. The notice dated 3.1.2013 only mentioned the option of submitting written arguments instead of personal attendance, but it did not mandate the submission of written submissions. The petitioners had the right to present arguments through their authorized representative without filing written submissions. As the petitioners were present on 10.1.2013, there was no requirement for them to submit written arguments. Therefore, the Court found that the proceedings finalized by the second respondent, without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, were not valid.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the second respondent to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioners a genuine opportunity of hearing. The second respondent was instructed to finalize the proceedings within three months from the date of the judgment. The petitioners were directed to appear for the hearing without seeking adjournment, except for compelling reasons. The interim order issued by the Court was to continue until the matter was resolved. Both writ petitions were allowed without any costs.