2019 (2) TMI 1626 - HC - Income Tax

Challenge of assessment order in writ - violation of principles of natural justice - denial of opportunity v/s inadequate opportunity - not providing more opportunity of hearing; instead, he passed the orders straight away - HELD THAT - Seen from the record, the petitioner's Ext.P6 reply contains no further request from the petitioner that he be given another opportunity of hearing. I reckon after hearing the petitioner's representative on more than one occasion and after going through the petitioner's reply and the material he produced, the Assessing Authority passed the impugned orders. In the name of additional and extended opportunities, one cannot expect the authorities to prolong the matter in perpetuity. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, denial of opportunity differs from inadequate opportunity. Hear I reckon, even the latter contention cannot be urged. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Nevertheless, I leave it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority if so advised.

Summary

Issues: Assessment orders challenged on grounds of violating principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee, challenged assessment orders for three consecutive years, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner acted bona fide and diligently throughout the proceedings but was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself adequately.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that after submitting replies, the assessing authority did not provide further opportunities for the petitioner to present his case. The counsel sought to set aside the assessment orders and remand the matter for a fresh hearing based on the inadequacy of the opportunities provided, citing the case of K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, 1989.

3. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department asserted that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to defend himself during the proceedings. He distinguished between denial and inadequacy of opportunity, stating that even if the petitioner's claims were considered, they pertained to the merits of the case rather than a violation of natural justice principles.

4. The court examined the events leading to the assessment orders and noted that the petitioner's representative had appeared before the assessing authority multiple times, providing all relevant material. The court observed that the petitioner's reply did not include a specific request for an additional hearing opportunity after the initial submissions.

5. Referring to the case cited by the petitioner, the court highlighted a previous judgment where a petitioner was given only six days to respond, leading to a finding of inadequate opportunity. The court emphasized that the case did not involve multiple rounds of extended hearings.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition but left open the option for the petitioner to appeal to the appellate authority if desired, without imposing any costs. The judgment upheld the assessment orders while acknowledging the possibility of further recourse through the appellate process.