2016 (7) TMI 919 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment - Held that - The entire decision making process, including hurriedly passing an assessment order seems to be vitiated. We have exercised our extraordinary jurisdiction as no authority can ignore the binding decisions of this Court. The theory of mistakes and misplacing of papers in the overall context does not inspire confidence. It would require consideration. The authority concerned must factor in the time period of four weeks while disposing of the objections before commencing reassessment proceedings. Prima facie this appears also to be a case of breach of natural justice as no sufficient time was given to the assessee to meet the objections of the Revenue and for the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee s response to it. We have given a detailed order at the interim stage, because normally we do not entertain a Writ Petition wherein assessment order has been passed after participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings. However looking at the context in which the assessment order has come to be passed, prima facie, we are of the view that it would require detailed consideration. Accordingly, there shall be an interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d).

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, participation in assessment proceedings, violation of principles of natural justice, hurried passing of assessment order, discrepancies in dates mentioned in documents.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Notice under Section 148: The petitioner challenged the notice dated 16th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11. The petitioner requested reasons for the notice, filed objections, and attended assessment proceedings. The Revenue argued that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings by appearing before the Assessing Officer on 30th March, 2016.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Court noted a predetermined mind to pass an order on reassessment without following the principles of natural justice. The Assessment Officer failed to provide the Assessee with the required four weeks period post the rejection of objections, as mandated by the Court's order in a previous case, leading to a rushed decision-making process.

3. Discrepancies in Dates: Discrepancies were observed in the dates mentioned in various documents. The assessment order was dated 31st March, 2016, while the demand notice under Section 156 of the Act was dated 30th March, 2016. The attendance sheet indicated the passing of the order on 30th March, 2016, contrary to the date mentioned in the affidavitinreply.

4. Hastily Passing Assessment Order: The Court highlighted the rushed nature of passing the assessment order, especially considering the limited time available between the disposal of objections and the passing of the assessment order. The decision-making process was deemed to be vitiated due to the lack of sufficient time for proper examination and consideration of the Assessee's submissions.

5. Breach of Natural Justice: The Court observed a potential breach of natural justice as the Assessee was not given adequate time to address the Revenue's objections and for the Assessing Officer to consider the responses. The failure to provide a reasonable timeframe for the Assessee to respond and for the Officer to evaluate the responses raised concerns regarding the fairness of the assessment process.

6. Court's Decision: Despite the availability of an alternate remedy and the passing of the assessment order, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction due to the apparent flaws in the decision-making process. The Court emphasized the importance of following established legal principles and ensuring a fair and just assessment procedure. An interim relief was granted based on the detailed considerations of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to the challenge of a notice for reopening assessment, violation of natural justice principles, discrepancies in dates, rushed passing of the assessment order, and breach of natural justice. The Court intervened due to the perceived flaws in the assessment process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal principles and ensuring a fair procedure.