2019 (10) TMI 641 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - non compliance with the rules of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the various queries raised by the department after perusing the reply given by the assessee to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act would clearly reveal that the department was only seeking for the documents that would substantiate the claim of the petitioner assessee for exemption in respect of a substantial portion of the income that was declared by him in the return. Ultimately, by Ext.P17 assessment order, all that the department did, was to deny the claim for exemption of the petitioner assessee, and while doing so, the department was not obliged to grant any hearing to the petitioner over and above the opportunities that had already been extended to the petitioner to respond to the specific queries raised by the department. There cannot be a mechanical application of the principles of natural justice in every case and the necessity of affording a hearing to an assessee, in order to comply with the rules of natural justice, must be examined on the facts of each case. No prejudice having been caused to the petitioner through the denial of a personal hearing since, although the petitioner has a case that he could have submitted additional documents, he ought to have done so within the time granted to him by the department and, further, no such documents have been produced in the writ petition. Resultantly, do not find Ext.P17 order to be vitiated by a non compliance with the rules of natural justice, or by any other jurisdictional error, so as to warrant an interference with the said order in these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in its challenge against the said order and Ext.P18 demand notice fails, and is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner would submit that he would require some time to move the appellate authority in an appeal against Ext.P17 order. Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P17 order, before the appellate authority, within six weeks from today, then the appellate authority shall consider and pass orders in the appeal, on merits, after hearing the petitioner. In order to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority, direct that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P17 assessment order/Ext.P18 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance for the above said period of six weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of income tax for the financial year 2015-16
2. Allegation of insufficient time for explanation before assessment order
3. Compliance with statutory notices and principles of natural justice

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of income tax for the financial year 2015-16
The petitioner, engaged in timber business, sold agricultural plots to M/s Believers Church, claiming the sale consideration as agricultural income exempt from tax under Capital Gains. The Income Tax Department issued multiple notices seeking documents to substantiate the exemption claim. The assessment order found the petitioner liable for tax amounting to ?5,76,29,515. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of lack of personal hearing opportunity before the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Allegation of insufficient time for explanation before assessment order
The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without granting adequate time for explanation, depriving the opportunity to clarify figures submitted in various replies. The respondent argued that the queries raised were to establish the exemption claim and that the delay in assessment was due to the petitioner's failure to provide necessary details initially. The court noted that the petitioner did respond to the queries but failed to provide satisfactory evidence to support the exemption claim, leading to the assessment order.

Issue 3: Compliance with statutory notices and principles of natural justice
The court observed that the department had followed statutory procedures by serving notices under the Income Tax Act. It held that the department's queries were aimed at seeking documents to substantiate the exemption claim and did not necessitate an additional hearing before passing the assessment order. The court emphasized that natural justice principles must be examined based on individual case facts. As the petitioner failed to produce additional documents within the given time frame and did not demonstrate prejudice caused by the lack of a personal hearing, the court upheld the assessment order.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice. It directed the petitioner to move the appellate authority within six weeks, keeping recovery steps on hold during this period. The judgment clarified that the petitioner could seek rectification of factual errors in the assessment order before the assessing authority.