2022 (12) TMI 1457 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - shorter period to file the reply - HELD THAT - Writ petitioner-assessee had time till 31.03.2022 to send a reply. To put it in perspective, the writ petitioner-assessee had time till 59 minutes past 23 hours on 31.03.2022. There is also no disputation that the writ petitioner's reply was sent on 31.03.2022 and it has been duly acknowledged by the respondent at 21 19 24 hours but the respondent has made the impugned order about over an hour earlier i.e., at 19 56 hours on the same day. This means that the respondent has made the impugned order before the time given to the assessee for replying to the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022 elapsed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with on this sole ground Impugned order and impugned notice are set aside on the sole ground that the impugned order has been made before the time for writ petitioner-assessee to reply to the 148A(b) notice elapsed and the writ petitioner-assessee has in fact sent a reply before the time elapsed. Impugned order and impugned notice are set aside solely to facilitate the de novo drill after taking into account the reply of writ petitioner. To be noted, the impugned notice is a consequence or a product of the impugned order and therefore, impugned notice also perishes with the impugned order. The respondent shall proceed with the de novo drill from the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022 by taking into account the reply of the writ petitioner-assessee dated 31.03.2022 sent on 31.03.2022 acknowledged by respondent at 21 19 24 hours .

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to an order under the Income-tax Act, 1961 made before the deadline for reply, Request for information and material relied upon by the Revenue, Comparison with relevant legal judgments.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order under the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner challenged an order made under the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the deadline for the petitioner's reply had elapsed. The petitioner's reply was acknowledged by the Department before the order was issued. The Court found that the order was made prematurely and directed the respondent to redo the assessment process, considering the petitioner's reply. The impugned notice was also set aside as a consequence of the premature order.

2. Request for Information and Material:
The petitioner requested the respondent to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Court noted that the petitioner had explicitly asked for information in their reply. The Court agreed with the Revenue counsel that the request for information was already addressed in the petitioner's reply, and there was no need for a separate directive to furnish information.

3. Comparison with Legal Judgments:
The petitioner relied on legal judgments to support the request for information. The Court distinguished the cited judgments based on the factual differences in each case. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the specific facts of each case when applying legal precedents. The Court found that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not directly applicable to the current case.

4. Disposition of the Case:
The Court set aside the impugned order and notice, directing the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment process starting from the notice date and considering the petitioner's reply. The Court instructed the respondent to complete the assessment within a specified timeline. The writ petition and related motions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

By thoroughly analyzing each issue raised in the judgment, the Court provided a detailed and comprehensive resolution to the legal matters at hand, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the parties involved.