2020 (1) TMI 1178 - HC - Income Tax

Best judgment assessment u/s 144 - petitioner failed to furnish the details within the time stipulated in the said notice and instead filed required details on 24.12.2019 before the impugned order was signed and despatched through e-mail by the respondent - HELD THAT - Though there is failure on the part of the petitioner to keep up with the deadlines fixed by the respondent, nevertheless the petitioner had furnished the details required by uploading the same in the official website of the respondent on 24.12.2019 at 10.45am. Therefore, even if the impugned order is quashed no prejudice or harm would be caused to the respondent. Further, the impugned order had not been signed by the respondent, when the information was uploaded by the petitioner. The impugned order passed in a hurried manner is unsustainable is liable to be quashed. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh speaking order within thirty days from the date of a receipt of copy of this order. The respondent shall fix a personal hearing for the said proceedings before passing orders. While passing fresh orders, the respondent shall take into consideration the reply and the documents filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2019. It is also made clear no extension of time will be entertained by the respondent. Writ petition is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act challenged by the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed Income Tax Returns reporting significant transactions post-demonetization. Notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, requesting documents and information. Despite reminders and deadlines, the petitioner failed to comply fully. The respondent proposed completing the assessment under Section 144 due to the petitioner's non-compliance.

The petitioner partially responded to the notices but failed to meet the deadlines set by the respondent. The petitioner uploaded required details on the official website before the impugned order was issued, showing an attempt to comply. The impugned order was passed hastily, ignoring the information provided by the petitioner.

The respondent argued that the petitioner's negligence led to missed deadlines, justifying the best judgment assessment under Section 144. The respondent contended that leniency was unwarranted, as the petitioner, a Cooperative Bank, should have provided the necessary details. The respondent suggested the petitioner pursue an alternative remedy before the Commissioner of Appeals.

The court considered both parties' arguments and noted the sequence of notices and reminders sent to the petitioner for assessment. Despite the petitioner's delays, the court acknowledged the effort made by the petitioner to provide the required information before the impugned order was finalized. The court found the hurried manner in which the impugned order was passed unsustainable and ordered it to be quashed.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent to issue a fresh order within thirty days, considering the petitioner's submissions. The court directed a personal hearing before the new order is passed and emphasized that no extensions would be granted. The writ petition was allowed by remand, with no costs incurred.