2018 (8) TMI 1315 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Rectification of an error - application was pending for long time before the AO - Held that - It appears that pursuant to the request made by the petitioner for an adjournment on four occasions, the respondent is yet to fix a date and has not taken any decision pursuant to the impugned notice In my view, the consequential relief sought for by the petitioner, if considered, would be sufficient to safeguard the interest of the assessee and there would be no necessity to quash the impugned notice, as there is no statutory bar for the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment order dated 30. 12. 2016 even if an appeal is pending against it. Appellant directed to file the objections and AO directed to adjudicate the same and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned notice under Section 154/155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for amending the assessment order for the year 2014-15.
Petitioner seeking to quash the impugned notice and requesting to file submissions for fresh orders.
Consideration of the consequential relief sought by the petitioner.
Request for an adjournment due to a pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).
Directions for the petitioner to submit objections and supportive documents within a specified period.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the respondent under Section 154/155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to amend the assessment order for the year 2014-15. The petitioner requested to quash the notice and submit additional submissions for fresh orders. The court considered the relief sought by the petitioner, emphasizing that there is no statutory bar for the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment order even if an appeal is pending. The court found that providing an opportunity for the petitioner to submit objections and supporting documents would safeguard the assessee's interest without the need to quash the notice.

The petitioner had requested an adjournment citing a pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The court noted that despite multiple adjournment requests, the respondent had not fixed a date or taken any decision based on the impugned notice. The petitioner sought permission to file submissions, calculation summaries, and records to enable the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to present their case and be heard in detail, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

In the judgment, the court directed the petitioner to submit objections to the impugned notice within 15 days and supported documents in the form of a paper book. Upon receiving the objections, the respondent was instructed to schedule a personal hearing, listen to the petitioner or their authorized representative, and issue a speaking order on merits and in accordance with the law. The court clarified that filing objections would not prejudice the grounds raised in the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The judgment concluded without imposing any costs and closed the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP).